- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:27:18 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > If MOVE is non-idempotent, it might also be good to clarify the > semantics of MOVEing a null resource in 2518bis; i.e., that it's > allowed, and won't give a 404 (for example). Finally I'm starting to understand the issue :-) Yes, MOVE applied to a null resource is expected to fail (with 404); thus doing a MOVE two times in a row should leave the system in the same state as doing it once. Seems it's idempotent after all. Same for COPY, except...: RFC3253 allows PUT and COPY (target resource) to be auto-versioned. That is, everytime you PUT to a URI, you may be -- as a side effect -- creating a new version (and the DeltaV live properties on the resource will reflect this). Can we still consider this idempotent. RFC3253bis should say something about this.. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Saturday, 26 February 2005 08:27:57 UTC