- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:29:53 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- cc: "'Joe Orton'" <joe@orton.demon.co.uk>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Why would it have to delete the properties? Overwrite is defined to "... overwrite the state of a non-null destination resource ...". It is specified in terms of a COPY/MOVE, and we can state that for a MKREF, it *only* overwrites the target. There is no other language that forces us to interpret Overwrite as "DELETE the resource first [implying the props are deleted]". I really like Joe's idea. Cheers, -g On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Slein, Judith A wrote: > It's certainly a possibility. > > The only problem I can see with relying on MKREF is that it would not just > update the target, but would replace the resource with a new resource. > That's probably harmless if it's an HTTP resource with no properties, but if > it is a WebDAV resource it might have properties that you would like to > preserve while updating its target. > > --Judy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Orton [mailto:joe@orton.demon.co.uk] > Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 7:05 PM > To: WebDAV WG > Subject: Re: Bindings and Redirect Ref. teleconf. Mar. 1, 2000 > > > > Issue #6: Need to add rationale for why we use relative URLs. Server is > > required to store it as a relative URL. Server MUST NOT change the > relative > > URL during a MOVE. > > > > Raises the issue of needing separate methods for getting the value of a > > reference, and modifying the value of a reference. Tentatively agreed on > > REFGET, REFSET (but noone likes these too much). > > The original -00 spec allowed MKREF with Overwrite, could this be used > instead of REFSET? > > joe > -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 17:27:29 UTC