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

It's causing confusion right now :-)

Looking at Roy's original complaint...:

"My comment was regarding the requirement that DAV capable resources be
within a DAV collection.  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 or by the error response
received when attempting to do a WebDAV operation on a non-DAV resource.
"Save as..." dialogs are cool, but not necessary, for authoring."

So it's not about the term "consistent namespace", it's about "DAV-capable resource". I don't think that what Roy actually complained about is (section 5):

"All DAV compliant resources MUST support the HTTP URL namespace model specified herein."

This seems to be what needs to go, not the definition of consistency.

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 Jim Whitehead
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 6:06 PM
> To: 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: WebDAV resources must be in collections? (CONSISTENCY)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm OK with this. Implementors tend to do the "right" thing wrt 
> consistency when it matters, and the current language has caused 
> confusion far beyond its worth.
> 
> - Jim
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 5:46 PM
> > 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 12:14:41 UTC