- From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:24:59 -0800
- To: "WebDAV" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 11:55 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > 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." Julian, It doesn't follow from above that HTTP must have bindings as they are specified in the binding document (and GULP). One can imagine a number of scenarios where there are multiple URIs for a resource that have quite different semantics and behavior. In fact, it's easy to imagine a different binding draft that specifies, for instance, soft links. This binding draft would be perfectly consistent with both HTTP and WebDAV, but would behave very differently from the current draft. In fact, implementations which are built directly on top of unix file systems might prefer that draft to the current draft. Are there good reasons to prevent other binding models by forcing the binding model of the current bind draft into WebDAV? Especially given our lack of experience with deploying bindings, I'd prefer WebDAV to be agnostic for the time being. Let's face it, file systems find a need to support different binding models, so it's plausible that WebDAV might find this need as well. -brian briank@xythos.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:25:27 UTC