- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:30:48 +0200
- To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 03:31:22 UTC
"COPY should do the equivalent of a GET/PROPFIND followed by PUT/PROPPATCH." I think *if* we say something like this we should warn that this may not produce a new resource that behaves the same under variant handling (because only one of possible multiple variants would be copied). -----Original Message----- From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 6:49 PM To: Jason Crawford Cc: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: RE: New RFC2518bis draft, COPY / MOVE of live properities Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to mark COPY_LIVE_PROPS as resolved... Resolved: 8/1/02: COPY should do the equivalent of a GET/PROPFIND followed by PUT/PROPPATCH. - MOVE should maintain the integrity of the resource in that all live properties and behaviors should remain live and have the same semantics at the new location as at the old location. If there is any doubt "same" is defined according to the resource author's concept of "this resource". If you'd like this changed, just speak up. :-) J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 03:31:22 UTC