- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 10:19:22 +0200
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
A quick scan of 2518 revealed that the "consistent namespace" definition is used with COPY/MOVE/DELETE to define restrictions on the outcome of the operation. E.g. that the copied/moved/deleted resource created a consistent namespace, especially in case of collections. I think that definition and the restrictions on COPY/MOVE/DELETE are necessary and, in particular, do allow single WebDAV resources on a server without an embedding, WebDAV-enabled collection. Regards, Stefan Am Mittwoch, 08.10.03, um 09:51 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Julian Reschke: > > 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 04:20:33 UTC