- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 23:51:06 +0100
- To: "Brian Korver" <briank@xythos.com>, "'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: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:35 PM > To: 'WebDAV' > Subject: Re: Move and Delete (was: bind draft issues) > > > > On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 01:48 PM, Brian Korver wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 5, 2003, at 12:34 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > [snip] > >> The same thing as the failure you'll get upon trying to rename. MOVE > >> is > >> *not* the same thing (or should not be the same thing) as > >> COPY/DELETE. If a > >> MOVE can't preserve the resource's live properties, it should fail. > >> > >> Now I *do* agree that in many cases clients will actually *want* the > >> "weak" > >> MOVE. So maybe we should consider supporting both (either by a new > >> method, > >> or by adding parameters to MOVE). > > > > That's an interesting idea. > > Julian, > > Were you thinking that this header (say "Atomic-Operation:") would be > used for only MOVE, or for all of the relevant operations (COPY, > DELETE, etc.)? Actually, I'd really prefer not to define additional headers. Thinking of it, we *also* can't agree on the right DELETE semantics (see separate discussion). So one way to address this would be to leave DELETE and MOVE as they are, and to add - UNBIND (that really really really removes bindings, thus has the DELETE semantics currently specified by the BIND draft) and - RENAME (which would be a true MOVE that would fail when the server can't implement it as internal namespace operation). This would make discovery of the new functionality much easier. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 17:51:16 UTC