- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:32:37 -0800 (PST)
- To: WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I read the section 9.6 in the spec about the Overwrite header itself. It doesn't mention anything about DELETE. You guys are (IMO, incorrectly) associating Overwrite with MOVE/COPY. I feel that the right way to look at it is "what does MOVE/COPY do when Overwrite is present?" Another way to say it is that you're creating too strong of a binding between the semantics of the COPY/MOVE methods and the presence of that header. By your logic, every method should have its own set of associated headers. We should never share headers. We'll have Overwrite, MKREF-Overwrite, etc. I wouldn't be upset with a "merge" definition, but I did have to respond to the way you guys are approaching the problem :-) Cheers, -g On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Jim Whitehead wrote: > I agree with Geoff -- the Overwrite header isn't ideal for this case, since > it has "delete first" semantics, and is always associated with the > Destination of a COPY/MOVE, not the Request-URI. > > - Jim > > > For both current uses of the Overwrite header (COPY and MOVE), the use > > of Overwrite means to first delete the resource (if any) that exists at > > that location. I.e.: > > > > 8.9.3 MOVE and the Overwrite Header > > > > If a resource exists at the destination and the Overwrite header is > > "T" then prior to performing the move the server MUST perform a > > DELETE with "Depth: infinity" on the destination resource. > > > > 8.8.4 COPY and the Overwrite Header > > > > If a resource exists at the destination and the Overwrite header is > > "T" then prior to performing the copy the server MUST perform a > > DELETE with "Depth: infinity" on the destination resource. > > > > To define its semantics for MKREF to differ in this regard > > seems likely to result in confusion and errors on the part of > > implementors. > > > > In the past, I've proposed that we extend the Overwrite header to allow > > a "Merge" value (i.e. Overwrite:Merge). If we did so, then the use of > > of "Overwrite:Merge" would allow us to consistently use MKREF and an > > Overwrite header to update the value of the redirect reference. > > > > Cheers, > > Geoff > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org] > > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 5:30 PM > > To: Slein, Judith A > > Cc: 'Joe Orton'; WebDAV WG > > Subject: RE: Bindings and Redirect Ref. teleconf. Mar. 1, 2000 > > > > > > 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/ > > > -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Monday, 6 March 2000 16:29:54 UTC