- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 22:24:05 +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 9:29 PM > To: 'Webdav WG' > Subject: RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253 > > > The benefit that I want us to provide is giving the > client the ability to store away a URL in a text file (or > in some email) with the confidence that this URL will continue > to work, short of the complete destruction/disappearance of > the resource. If another client is allowed to remap this So do I. The only difference is that I think that it's irrelevant whether the resource was deleted or moved away. Could you please explain why this would affect a client? The consequence (the prior URI not being mapped to a resource anymore) is the same. > resource to a different URL, the original URL no longer > provides this service. It still can be used the same way as described by you. The only difference is that if the URI mapping is removed, a client can not assume that the resource itself was removed. But why would that matter? Could you please state a use case where this really makes a difference? And if it really does matter, where does this leave us with the BIND spec (see below)? > It's very analagous to making a version immutable. It would > be simpler (and more "flexible") to allow any client to change > the content of a version, and just depend on "convention" to > leave the version content alone. But then a client can't count > on this being true, and has to figure out some way to workaround > the lack of enforced semantics. (This is just an analogy, so > if it doesn't work for you, please just ignore it, rather than > try to prove it "wrong" :-). Hm. I'll only state that I'm *not* proposing to make a version mutable. I just think that making it *movable* makes the model much simpler and avoids making special workarounds for bindings (note that this doesn'r *require* a server to allow MOVE on it). The intent of the BIND spec is to decouple names (bindings) from resources. I think we should try to adhere to it. In particular, if existing protocols need to be fixed to account for bindings, I fear that we're doing something wrong. > BTW, the term "stable" is used in section 1 of RFC3253, to > describe this desireale characteristic of a version URL. Agreed (although it is "stable name" in RFC3253). -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 16:24:38 UTC