- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 23:00:40 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
- Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE2B29382@SUS-MA1IT01>
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > From: Clemm, Geoff > > Note: This precondition actually violates the requirement > earlier in the text that a server support cyclic bindings. I wasn't aware off that being a requirement. I see why a server that *does* support cyclic bindings need to signal them upon depth infinity operations (-> 506), but why would you want to require support for their creation? Actually, I'm tempted to require servers to detect cyclic bindings upon creation and to reject those requests. What's the use case for cyclic bindings? If you are using bindings to capture some relationship, and that relationship is cyclic, then you can't capture that relationship if you are not allowed to create cyclic bindings. > But probably a server should be allowed to reject cyclic > bindings, so I'm happy to add this pre-condition (and remove > the current requirement), if nobody objects. BTW: this precondition applies to all namespace-manipulating operations (a MOVE of a collection may fail for the same reason). Assuming that the server does not allow you to "move" the root (which no server does), how do you create a cycle with a move operation? Cheers, Geoff
Received on Saturday, 26 October 2002 23:01:12 UTC