W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Issue 2.5_language, was: ID: draft-ietf-webdav-bind-05

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:09:58 -0700
Message-Id: <4D463C3A-C551-11D8-B2D4-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Because the sentence talked only about one collection supporting 
REBIND, and I would think that the most important collection to support 
REBIND in this case would be the source collection.  I think that was a 
reasonable and careful read of the text.

Perhaps my assumption would not have held up if the sentence had said 
"if the destination collection and the source resource of a MOVE 
request both support the REBIND method ..." etc.


On Jun 23, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> This has a little problem with terminology:
>>>    If the destination collection of a MOVE request supports the 
>>>    method (see Section 6), a MOVE of a resource into that collection 
>>> MAY
>>>    be implemented as a REBIND request.
>> The "destination collection" seems here to refer to the collection 
>> named in the Request-URI, not the collection named in the Destination 
>> header.
> Can't follow. When talking about a MOVE request, why would you ever 
> understand "destination collection" as the thing identified by the 
> Reuqest-URI (which is clearly the source), not the thing identified by 
> the "Destination" header?
> Please explain.
>> ...
> Best regards, Julian
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2004 16:10:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:31 UTC