- From: CJ Holmes <cholmes@4d.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:08:33 -0800
- To: DAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> > >No, "DAV-Enabled" vs. "Translate" is the completely wrong approach. >> >Following your proposal, a "DAV enabled" client never would want >> to GET the >> >output resource. >> >> Sure you could. If the administrator decides that's a good thing, >> and wants to separate the URIs for source and display, then you could >> certainly GET the output resource with your DAV client. And if >> DAV:source ever gets fixed and implemented then you could even have >> automatic linking between display and source URIs. Its all about >> how the administrator wants to set up the policy. > >OK, so you agree that this is a problem with your proposal, while it isn't >with separate URLs? No, I don't agree that this is a problem. In most cases it is the _desired_ effect because users generally only use DAV for messing with their source, and they don't care about using DAV with the output. But they _do_ want to use the same URLs for both editing source and viewing output. If the administrator wants something different he should be able to configure his server accordingly. Separating "source" and "display" into different resources with different URIs is a very nice idea, but not terribly useful to most people. Maybe once the DAV:source property is fixed and DASL gets off the ground, this will become a more useful configuration. I believe the DAV spec needs to allow both scenarios, and the simplest way to do that is to either: - have a definitive way to know when a client expects the source or - know when a GET method originates from a DAV client cjh --
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 14:13:37 UTC