RE: WebDAV resources must be in collections? (CONSISTENCY)

Lisa,

what you are talking about is the consistency *definition*. Of course it's possible to have WebDAV-compliant resources in non-consistent namespaces.

What we'll have to look fot is where the term is *used*. If it isn't, the definition can go. However, I think we need it to define the behaviour of namespace operations such as MOVE?

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 Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 2:46 AM
> To: 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: WebDAV resources must be in collections? (CONSISTENCY)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the CONSISTENCY issue in 
> http://www.webdav.org/wg/rfcdev/issues.htm.
> 
> RFC2518 says:
> 
> "  An HTTP URL namespace is said to be consistent if it meets the
>    following conditions: for every URL in the HTTP hierarchy there
>    exists a collection that contains that URL as an internal member.
>    The root, or top-level collection of the namespace under
>    consideration is exempt from the previous rule."
> 
> Roy Fielding - 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1998OctDec/0155.html:
> 
> "There is no need for that requirement and it
> is the root of many terminology issues.  Any individual resource is
> capable of being or not being DAVable, as determined by either the
> capabilities described by an OPTIONS response"
> 
> I've been thinking of a use case for WebDAV resources that may not 
> be in WebDAV-capable collections.  The SIMPLE WG has discussed 
> making Buddy lists be (in one model) a WebDAV resource.  This would 
> mean that the buddy list could be locked, unlocked, could support
> PROPFIND and PROPPATCH, could support the basic WebDAV properties 
> to know when the content changed and what the ETag is.  It could 
> have an owner and support the ACL method and the acl property.
> 
> Should we remove this consistency requirement from RFC2518bis?
> 
> Lisa
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2003 03:54:16 UTC