- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:06:31 +0100
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEDKFLAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
RE: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253On the other hand, doing that would make the question about response codes moot. -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 2:57 PM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: 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
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 09:07:05 UTC