RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

   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 (:-).

Cheers,
Geoff