- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 23:20:11 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: >> If it doesn't matter, why does RFC2518 say: >> >> "Although implicit in [RFC2068] and [RFC2396], any resource, including >> collection resources, MAY be identified by more than one URI. For >> example, a resource could be identified by multiple HTTP URLs." >> >> (<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#rfc.section.5.1.p.4>) and >> >> "A resource may be made available through more than one URI. However >> locks apply to resources, not URIs. Therefore a LOCK request on a >> resource MUST NOT succeed if can not be honored by all the URIs >> through which the resource is addressable." >> > > In this case it *does* matter to clients because it is detectable -- the > behavior has concrete results, even if the client can't detect that > there are multiple bindings. If a client is trying to allow the user to It's always detectable. For instance, if I submit a depth:0 LOCK request to "/a", and a subsequent PROPFIND on the DAV:lockdiscovery property of "/b" shows that it is locked by the same lock I just created on "/a", I can conclude that both are the same resource. BIND makes it *easier* to detect sameness, but it doesn't introduce any new concept. > ... Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 22:20:49 UTC