- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 18:02:55 +0200
- To: "Nevermann, Dr., Peter" <Peter.Nevermann@softwareag.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEALIBAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Clarification of COPY semantics with Overwrite: T1) Yes. 2) 3 (I doubt that many servers get this right :-). Julian -- <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 Nevermann, Dr., Peter Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 5:51 PM To: 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org' Subject: Clarification of COPY semantics with Overwrite: T RFC2518, Section 8.8.4 states: If a resource exists at the destination and the Overwrite header is "T" then prior to performing the copy the server MUST perform a DELETE with "Depth: infinity" on the destination resource. RFC3253, Section 1.7 states: If at the time of the request, there already is a resource at the destination that has the same resource type as the corresponding resource at the request-URL, that resource MUST NOT be deleted, but MUST be updated to have the content and dead properties of its corresponding member. 1) Resource-ID: In terms of binding and with the semantics of RFC3253, I suppose that the DAV:resource-id of the resource being overwritten at destination doesn't change by the COPY operation. Right? 2) Bindings: Suppose there is a collection C1 mapped to URI-1 with 2 bindings a1->R1 and a2->R2 ... moreover, a colletion C2 mapped to URI-2 with 2 bindings a1->R1' and a3->R3'. Now I issue the follwing request: COPY URI-1 Destination: URI-2 Overwrite: T How many bindings has C2 after the COPY? In the "old" semantics of RFC2518 the answer clearly is 2 since the tree of C2 gets deleted prior to the COPY. In the semantics of RFC3253 it could be 3: C2 is updated with the dead properties of C1, a1->R1' is updated with content+dead-props of R1, a2->R2' is created based of R2 and a3->R3' remains unchanged. Or should a3->R3' be unbinded? Thanks, Peter
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 12:03:08 UTC