- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:07:07 -0500
- To: DAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
It sounds like we have come to an agreement on the benefits of having a separate URL, and on the benefits of having additional methods/headers that allow you to use the same URL. The problem with defining/allowing both techniques, is that some servers will end up only doing one or the other, and some clients will end up only doing one or the other. That means clients will only interoperate in this regard wrt to servers that do it "the same way". And for clients/servers that care about interoperation, they have to do both, adding to the complexity of those interoperable clients/servers (and interoperable clients/servers are the ones we want to encourage/support). This is a tradeoff decision where reasonable people can disagree, but for me, the cost to interoperability of "allowing both" outweighs the benefits of having a "simpler" alternative way of achieving the same effect of DAV:source. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: CJ Holmes [mailto:cholmes@4d.com] DASL makes things more interesting because it allows for searching on properties. You might have content with properties that need to be searchable, generated by sources with a very different set of properties. (eg: a single source document that generates several display documents with searchable properties of different values.) Since in this case you _want_ different properties between source/display views you get a real benefit from splitting them into separate resources with separate URIs. I confess to not having read the spec, but it sounds like ACL is interesting because you could allow the NaturalSciences department (as an example) to restrict GET, HEAD, and POST operations in some display spaces and assign authoring/editing rights internally in some other spaces. In short, it might allow for a very author-driven security system instead of an administrator-driven one (without resorting to editing .htaccess files). Still, if you had a way to differentiate between GET and GETSOURCE, you wouldn't necessarily benefit from splitting the source/display resource, but it still might be very convenient to do so. This is why I keep coming back to the desireability of DAV:source. It should be fixed, and its support encouraged. But there also needs to be room for people who prefer the simplicity of the single URI, who just use DAV for messing with source, and who don't benefit from differentiating source/display URIs. cjh --
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 17:07:39 UTC