- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:17:18 +0100
- To: "Brian Korver" <briank@xythos.com>, "Jason Crawford" <nn683849@smallcue.com>
- Cc: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian Korver > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:29 PM > To: Jason Crawford > Cc: WebDAV > Subject: Re: bind draft issues > > ... > It is my understanding that there are implementations that > permit (or even mandate) that the DAV:displayname property > vary depending on URL. For instance, imagine if you have two > different bindings to the same resource, say > > http://example.com/foo.html > http://example.com/bar.html > > and display names which are the respective names of the resource, > "foo.html" and "bar.html". Are you saying that such implementations > would not be compliant with respect to 2518? Yes. Clearly they aren't. RFC2518 never talked about "URL properties". DAV:displayname is a property of the resource, and therefore it must be independant of the URL through which the property is accessed. BTW: I'm not aware of implementations that actually support multiple bindings and show this behaviour. > >> Regarding this issue, I was not suggesting that the problem > >> is that the binding protocol changed the behavior of properties, > >> just that the behavior needs to be fully specified. Do > >> you feel that 2518 does fully specify the behavior of > >> URL properties? > > > > Hold that thought until we resolve what it is you mean by > > URL properties... > > Perhaps "URL properties" isn't the right term, but what is? > In the face of bindings, "URL properties" are those properties > which are (potentially) effected by operations on bindings, where > "resource properties" are not effected by such operations. My understanding is that "URL properties" simply do not exist. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 16:17:51 UTC