- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 18:57:19 +0200
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 6:37 PM > To: 'Webdav WG' > Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253 > > > It is also desireable that a client be able to use > the original URL as long as that resource exists. But why? It *is* allowed to delete the resource, so there's no guarantee that the version/VHR will be kept eternally. From a client's point of view, it's completely irrelevant whether it's getting the 404 because the resource was deleted or because it was moved. > Stefan's proposal ensures that is the case. Yes, but it makes the model more complicated with little benefit. Forbidding a DELETE on a binding just because other bindings continue to exist seems to contradict the intent of the BIND spec. Therefore I'd like to see better reasons why we really need that. In doubt, we should *simplify* things, not make them more complicated. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 12:57:53 UTC