RE: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian Korver
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 8:45 PM
> To: WebDAV
> Subject: Re: Bindings and Locks (was: bind draft issues)
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 12:32  AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >
> > I explicitly support GULP being added RFC2518.
> >
> > In particular, I ask everybody to either state
> >
> > - if  they find GULP technically incorrect (so that we can fix it) or
> >
> > - otherwise explain why it can't be added to RFC2518bis as is.
> >
> > Julian
> 
> Julian,
> 
> I'm not convinced that the bindings that you see in 2518
> are really there.  In fact, I'm worried that inserting the

Again, quoting Geoff quoting RFC2616:

>In case there remains any question about whether HTTP supports
>multiple URIs being mapped to the same resource, the following quote
>appears in section 9.6 of RFC-2616:
>
>"A single resource MAY be identified by many different URIs. For
> example, an article might have a URI for identifying "the current
> version" which is separate from the URI identifying each
> particular version. In this case, a PUT request on a general URI
> might result in several other URIs being defined by the origin
> server."

So, please be more specific about where you see that problem.

> semantics of bindings into 2518bis will prohibit the use
> of WebDAV in contexts where these bindings cannot be
> supported.

How?

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 14:55:44 UTC