- From: Fisher Mark <fisherm@tce.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 12:40:16 -0500
- To: "'ccjason@us.ibm.com'" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> This is a bookkeeping issue. Remember, the DELETE is not an > allocation > issue. It's removing the resource out of one or more places in the > namespace and that's the only verifiable semantic that we can > talk about. > We've tried. Whether the resource continues to exist after > it loses its > last binding is up to the server. That's the key point here. On a direct-mapped webserver (no alias support in the webserver) that uses a singly-linked filesystem like VMS or Win32API-NTFS as a WebDAV backing store, it may make sense for the DELETE to actually remove the underlying file. If you are using a direct-mapped webserver on a multiply-linked filesystem like Unix or POSIXsubsystem-NTFS, then a DELETE might remove one link to the underlying file but leave any other links lying around. I could go on and on enumerating the various possibilities, but to me the DELETE only removes the name from the namespace -- it is entirely server-dependent as to what if anything happens to the underlying data for that name. From the client's viewpoint, that name and its data doesn't exist anymore. =============================================== Mark Leighton Fisher fisherm@tce.com Thomson Consumer Electronics Indianapolis IN "Browser Torture Specialist, First Class"
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2000 12:41:47 UTC