- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:38:53 -0800
- To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
One of the big mistakes WebDAV, in my opinion, made was differentiating between live and dead properties. I think this is a meaningless differentiation. For example, one can take any property, declare it "alive" and instantly get around the requirement that dead properties be available everywhere. "Maul, I have you now, that is a dead property and therefore must be available through all bindings!" "I see you are weak in the ways of WebDAV Qui-Gon, my server is enhanced so that all properties are treated as alive, therefore I do not have to make them all available through all bindings!" "But Maul, No! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...." (or whatever sound one makes when a light saber is thrust through one's chest) Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:geoffrey.clemm@rational.com] > Sent: Tue, January 18, 2000 8:26 AM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.BindingsProperty > > > > One possiblity is to say that "all dead properties of a resource must > be available from all bindings to that resource". This acknowledges > that the behavior of live properties can be "special", including > acting differently at different bindings to that resource. > > From: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com> > > Section 11 of the BIND specification defines the > dav:bindings property. What > is not clear to me from the text in this section is if it > is possible to > have the dav:bindings property accessible through one > binding but not > another? > > One could imagine that two servers share access to the > same disk drive and > hence are able to map names to the same "resource" (as > they understand the > term). In order to keep things consistent both servers > agree to record all > the names they use to refer to the same resource. However > only one of the > servers actually supports the BIND method and the > dav:bindings property and > the other doesn't. I can still do a GET on each server and > the result will > be from the same resource but only one of the servers will > be able to serve > up the dav:bindings property. Unfortunately the language > in section 11 > speaks of the dav:bindings property being on a resource so > the presumption > is that if I can get the dav:bindings property through one > binding then I > MUST be able to get it through the other. I believe this > is too strict a > requirement. > > As such I move that the language in section 11 be > clarified so as to specify > that the dav:bindings property may not necessarily be > available through all > bindings on the resource. >
Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2000 11:39:54 UTC