- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 02:32:35 -0800
- To: "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I hail from the school of hard requirements and the proposed language is open to too many possible interpretations to be considered "hard". I think it would be better to specify the explicit conditions given below and then provide a non-normative explanation of the desired long term behavior. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Slein, Judith A [mailto:JSlein@crt.xerox.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 7:05 PM > To: 'Yaron Goland'; 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. > > That's it for currently defined methods, I think. But I also > think that we > do have to rely on a more conceptual definition, however > inexact, to convey > the implications for other methods that might be defined in > the future. > > So here's a shot at the conceptual definition: > > If a server allows binding C:(S->R) to be created, it MUST > guarantee that > the resource R will continue to be accessible through the URI mappings > induced by that binding until it receives an explicit request > to destroy the > binding. Such a request would have to ask explicitly that > some element of > the relation C:(S->R) be removed, or that the relationship itself be > removed. It would have to explicitly request that the last > binding to C be > removed, that the last binding to R be removed, or that the > binding C:(S->R) > be removed from C. > > --Judy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yaron Goland [mailto:yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 8:49 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.MrIntegrity > > > > The last sentence of the last paragraph of section 4 reads > "Implementations > MUST ensure the integrity of bindings." Similar language is > used in the > second paragraph of section 5.1. However the term "integrity" > was never well > defined inside of the specification. As such it is impossible > to comply with > this requirement in an interoperable way. I would strongly > caution against > attempting to specify the definition for integrity, English > is much too > inexact a language for such an attempt to be successful. > > As such, I move that both sentences be removed and be > replaced with > a series of statements that define, in exact language, the > requirements that > are to be represented by the term "integrity", each sentence properly > qualified with a MUST. >
Received on Saturday, 22 January 2000 05:33:07 UTC