- From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:36:57 -0500
- To: "'ccjason@us.ibm.com'" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Yes, except that I'd prefer to keep this discussion about identifiers separate from referencing, which is addressed in the advanced collections spec. Actually, the 09 WebDAV spec says that DELETE on a collection deletes the collection and all of its member resources. If the spec gets rewritten to treat URIs as collection members, that might result in the behavior you want for deletion -- that only the member URIs would get deleted with the collection, not the resources they identify. Then, as you say, something different has to happen when you delete the last collection that has a member URI identifying a particular resource. In the advanced collections spec, where references are discussed, things already behave more like what you describe. It's the reference that is a member of the collection, so when the collection gets deleted, the references (not the resources they point to) get deleted with the collection. So you can never delete a resource by deleting a reference to it -- not even by deleting the last reference to it. Judith A. Slein CR&T/ADSTC jslein@crt.xerox.com 8*222-5169 > -----Original Message----- > From: ccjason@us.ibm.com [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 4:05 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: Clarification of URI vs. Resource > > > > Judy, > > I'd have to roughly agree with my interpretation of > everything you said > except... > > > DELETE collection C1 means that C1 and all of its member > resources are > gone, > > not just that certain identifiers for those resources don't work any > more. > > I'd hope that this DELETE actually only removes the > collection resource and > it's references (for lack of a better word) to it's member > resources. (And > as a result, various URI's would become invalid.) I'd also > hope that no > actual member *resources* would be destroyed... except > possibly those that > no longer have any (strong?) references to them. > > Maybe that's what you meant also? > > Jason. > > > >
Received on Friday, 13 November 1998 18:33:53 UTC