- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:39:15 +0200
- To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, "'Webdav WG \(E-mail\)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
- Cc: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford > Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:02 PM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: Clemm, Geoff; 'Webdav WG (E-mail)' > Subject: Re: Bindings, was: Issue: URI_URL, proposed changes > > > << > However, from an abstract point of view, multiple URIs can identify the same > resource even if they live on separate HTTP servers. In particular, the > implementations wouldn't even know about the "other" URI, and it would be > impossible require both servers to return the same DAV:resourceid. > >> > > I believe you're talking about inter-server bindings. See, that's the issue. Whether you consider two resources to be the "same" depends on your POV, and the layer you're look at. Consider the URI: humanlanguage:en:HTML%20version%of%RFC2518 I just made it up, and it identifies an abstract resource. I can claim that the following URIs identify the same resource: http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/protocol/rfc2518.html However, nobody will argue that this is the same type of "sameness" as described in the BIND protocol. So, no, I wasn't talking about inter-server bindings. > Because of garbage collection issues, I suspect the server that actually > holds the resource will know about all bindings to the resource. But more > importantly, I suspect all servers that bind to that resource will get the > resourceid from the server that actually contains the resource just as > they'd get other properties like the last modification date. > > Did you have something else in mind? > > I believe the resources should have a resourceid, but right now I can live > with a proposal that lacks it.
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 03:39:50 UTC