- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 13:27:12 -0700
- To: WEBDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> > > Thanks. Good catch. We'll fix this definition. > > I'm not sure he was suggesting a change. Just making an interesting and > > humorous comment. > > Yes. In fact, it occurs to me now that the zero-bindings state > might actually be useful, if you have a document store that lets > you delete all the bindings to a document (to keep it from being > accessed via HTTP) but still retain it in the store. Of course, > once this is done, there is no way WebDAV can bring it back (since > it's not accessible via HTTP), so it's out of scope; but we probably > shouldn't sound like we're forbidding it. RFC 2396 states that resources are not always network retrievable, and gives as examples human beings, corporations, and bound books in a library. These resources would have zero bindings. If I, personally, ever had a URI mapping, I think I'd choose DAV:jim :-) - Jim
Received on Monday, 24 May 1999 16:41:03 UTC