- From: Jim Davis <jdavis@coursenet.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:05:30 -0700
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
(This is exactly the same issue as the one Yaron raised earlier, about whether creating a direct reference creates a forest of new references, except expressed in terms of binding.) Suppose you have two existing collections, C1, and C2, where C1 contains C2, and the name bound to C1 is A/, and the name bound to C2 is A/B/, and that collection C2 contains R.html. Then we have the following mapping from names to resources URL resource A/ C1 A/B/ C2 A/B/R.html R Now suppose one binds the name X to C2 A/ C1 A/B/ C2 A/B/R.html R X/ C2 Does this also create a binding for X/R.html to R? If Yes, does this impose an unreasonable storage burden on the server? (Perhaps not. The bindings for the "contents" of collection C2 are stored with C2, not with the name X/) if No, then what does a server do with X/R.html?
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 1999 14:02:25 UTC