- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 23:05:55 +0200
- To: "Jason Crawford" <nn683849@smallcue.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Jim Whitehead" <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:39 PM > To: Julian Reschke > Cc: Jim Whitehead; 'Webdav WG' > Subject: RE: BIND response codes > > > > On Tuesday, 10/15/2002 at 07:49 ZE2, "Julian Reschke" wrote: > > For the same reason a Unix file system by default behaves this way. > > > > Hard links to collections are dangerous (loops) and in most cases > required > > (symlinks aka redirect refs to collections in most cases are all that's > > required). > > For example, garbage collecting a file system in the presence of > loops can be relatively expensive. > > I really don't want a new status code, but if we can't find an > appropriate > > existing one, I'm tentatively supportive of Julian's proposal to add one. I think it's clear that there *will* be implementations that do not allow additional bindings on collections (for instance those that are Unix-filesystem based). We don't need a new status code, I was just trying to figure out whether to return 405 (not allowed) or 403 (forbidden) with a well-defined pre-condition (DAV:collection-binds-supported?). Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 17:06:29 UTC