W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 08:56:45 -0500
Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE2CE75EE@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
   From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]

   > From: Clemm, Geoff
   > A COPY would have to check for any
   > resource that has multiple entries in its DAV:parent-set, to see if it
   > has already been copied (in which case a second binding to the copy is
   > created).

   This COPY behaviour makes sense, but can we really require it?
   Right now it seems completely legal to just create multiple plain
   new resources with same content and dead properties...

If the binding relationships are acyclic, creating multiple
plain new resources with the same content and dead properties
seems reasonable to me (i.e. I don't think the spec should
forbid it), but this would be a somewhat expensive approach if
there are cycles (:-).

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 08:57:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:27 UTC