- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:56:11 -0800
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>, "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Roy T. Fielding Another way of stating the rationale for the integrity requirement is this: we wanted to create a requirement that would prevent bindings that "dangle". It must not be possible for a client to interact with a binding that doesn't have a destination resource. - Jim > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 4:39 PM > To: Slein, Judith A > Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.MrIntegrity > > > >A binding is a relation between a segment S in a collection C > and a resource > >R, represented C:(S->R). We are saying that when a server > agrees to create > >a binding, it MUST guarantee that the binding will continue to > exist until > >one of the following happens: > > > >DELETE with a Request-URI whose final segment is S and the rest > of the URI > >identifies collection C > >MOVE with a Request-URI whose final segment is S and the rest of the URI > >identifies collection C > >BIND with a Destination whose final segment is S and the rest of the URI > >identifies collection C, and Overwrite is T > >DELETE the last binding to collection C > > > >It is not acceptable for a binding to be destroyed as a side > effect of any > >other operation. > > I don't understand why this is a requirement of bindings. It certainly > isn't a requirement of normal resources. Why should the requirements on > bound names be stronger than the names they bind to? > > ....Roy >
Received on Friday, 21 January 2000 13:00:13 UTC