- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:03:30 +0100
- To: John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>
- CC: 'Geoffrey M Clemm' <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, 'Kevin Wiggen' <kwiggen@xythos.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
John Barone wrote: > You state that the SHOULD language surrounding the "best-effort" > behavior of MOVE allows us to implement the operation as > "all-or-nothing" and still be compliant with the spec.; fair enough. > However, I'd think that the SHOULD language in a spec. should lean in > the direction of the desired/expected behavior. From Xythos' > perspective, "best-effort" is not the desired behavior, but then again, > we're just one voice. If the belief is that "best-effort" is the > consensus for the desired behavior when MOVEing a collection, then so be > it. However, if in future revisions the language changes to a MUST, > then Xythos would have to argue vigorously against such a change. > ... Hi, I'd like to emphasize that - as far as I can tell - nobody is suggesting any change like that. The RFC2518 language IMHO accurately reflects the fact that an implementation of MOVE varies a lot based on the underlying technology, and that there simply *are* cases where it can't be done atomically. Require it to be atomically, and those implementations that can't do it will either ignore the requirement, or stop supporting MOVE. I don't think this is what anybody wants. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 19:04:49 UTC