- From: Manfred Baedke <manfred.baedke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:46:40 +0200
- To: werner.donne@re.be
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <44F5C0F0.2050600@greenbytes.de>
Hi Werner, Werner Donné wrote: > Hi Julian, > > Julian Reschke wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> as a follow up to BugZilla issue 247 >> (http://ietf.osafoundation.org:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247>) which >> I opened a few days ago (but which was originally raised during Last >> Call) I'm currently confused by statements like: >> >> COPY/MOVE behaviour: This property value SHOULD be kept during a >> MOVE operation, but is normally re-initialized when a resource is >> created with a COPY. It should not be set in a COPY. >> >> (see >> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.html#rfc.section.15.1>). >> >> >> Questions: >> >> 1) When a resource is being created, shouldn't DAV:creationdate *always* >> be set (by definition?) >> > > My understanding of this is that the property is indeed set when a new > resource is created during a COPY. > > Yes, but as Julian pointed out, there is nothing special about a resource created by a COPY (compared to resources created by any other method). So what is the statement good for? >> 2) What does "should not be set in a COPY" mean? What does "in a COPY" >> refer to? >> > > I think this refers to the case when an existing resource is overwritten. > The creationdate shouldn't be updated because the resource is merely > being updated. The getlastmodified property on the other hand would be > set, but to the value corresponding to the time of the COPY operation. > > It is indeed possible that this meaning is intended. If so, one should at least change the wording in a way that this meaning is clear, but I'd prefer to remove the statement. Either a resource is created during the COPY or not, and this property behaves accordingly. I think this is pretty clear. >> There are similar problems with other COPY/MOVE behaviour statements, >> but maybe we can focus on this one first... >> >> Best regards, Julian >> >> >> >> > > Best regards, > > Werner. > Regards, Manfred
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 16:47:15 UTC