- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:27:02 -0400
- To: "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
- Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE25ED4C4@SUS-MA1IT01>
The purpose of a stable URL for a version and a version history is to guarantee that that URL will always identify that resource. This provides the client with two benefits: The first is that it can just pass that URL around and not have to worry about getting the wrong resource because that URL has been remapped to another resource. The second is to give the client a "reliable" way to locate the resource (i.e. a mapping that only goes away when the resource no longer exists). I believe the second benefit is worth the added complexity of saying "the stable binding cannot be deleted if there are multiple entries in the DAV:parent-set". Whether or not this is a a significant benefit of course depends on whether your client takes advantage of it, but I think the cost is minimal, especially since these kinds of bindings are already constrained to never be remapped to another resource. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 12:57 PM To: Clemm, Geoff; 'Webdav WG' Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253 > 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 13:27:38 UTC