- From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 10:18:04 -0500
- To: "'Jim Davis'" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
The reason for 3.3.1 was strictly to keep MKREF analogous with PUT, but I agree that this is not satisfactory if the resource that's being replaced is a collection. It also raises a sticky issue about whether MKREF on a direct references gets passed through. I like your suggestion that we just forbid MKREF on an existing resource. So that's what I'll do unless anyone objects. As I was looking through the spec for problems this change might cause, I noticed another change that probably should be made. In the section on dangling direct references, I said that PUT, MKCOL, and MKREF should succeed, but that really doesn't make sense. PUT should succeed. But MKCOL and MKREF should fail, I think. MKCOL would fail for a healthy direct reference, and it would be odd if the fact that a reference was broken could make it succeed. The same holds for MKREF if it gets passed through; if it doesn't get passed through, it should fail because it's being applied to an existing resource. --Judy Judith A. Slein CR&T/ADSTC jslein@crt.xerox.com 8*222-5169 > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Davis [mailto:jdavis@parc.xerox.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 10:05 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: ACR: MKREF on existing resource > > > 3.3.1 says "If a MKREF request is submitted for an existing > resource, the > existing resource's content and headers will be overwritten. > This behavior > is analogous to the behavior of the HTTP PUT method. " > > I would prefer to forbid MKREF on an non-null resource. > > My objections to the specified behavior are: > > 1. It is problematic if the resource is a collection. It > gives MKREF some > of the semantics of DELETE. Near as I can tell, WebDAV does > not allow PUT > to a collection, or at least leaves it undefined. Why allow MKREF? > > 2. We don't allow MKCOL on an existing resource, why allow MKREF? > > I don't see any real advantage to it, either. The only > advantage I can see > is that if there are existing dead properties they will be left > undisturbed. If we decided instead that one must DELETE, > then the client > would have to PROPFIND (to get copies of the properties), > DELETE, MKREF, > then PROPPATCH (to replace the properties). This does not seem > unreasonably burdensome to me, and it simplifies things. > > Finally, strictly editorially, I don't know what it means to > 'overwrite > headers'. > > best wishes > > Jim > >
Received on Friday, 4 December 1998 10:13:39 UTC