- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:32:08 -0400
- To: "Julian Reschke" <nnjulian.reschke___at___gmx.de@smallcue.com>
- Cc: "'Webdav WG'" <nnw3c-dist-auth___at___w3c.org@smallcue.com>
On Sunday, 08/17/2003 at 12:51 ZE2, "Julian Reschke" <nnjulian.reschke___at___gmx.de@smallcue.com> wrote: > I think the only safe way to respect RFC2616 semantics is to require that after > a COPY/MOVE, DAV:getlastmodified is set to the current date. > > 2) I also agree that this is likely to cause complaints from people who > actually want a time stamp for *resource* modifications. So it sounds like getlastmodified becomes a 100% live property that really isn't a property of the resource, but instead is a property of the URL. It won't be setable and it's up to the server to maintain some sort of database to track if the mapping of any given URL has changed since some other point in time or if the resource itself has been modified. Is this doable? Would a server tend to do this recursively? ie, Every binding has an age and the URL can be no older than any of the bindings that are currently traversed to reach that URL? Or is there a better way to maintain the semantics that you propose we maintain? Do servers already do this sort of thing? If I mv a resource in to a directory served by Apache, does it use the date the file system lists, or something newer? J.
Received on Sunday, 17 August 2003 16:32:23 UTC