I don't think so. Suppose that /a/b identified a resource R1. Also
suppose that /c identified resource R1.
If you rebind /a to /a/b, that will delete the binding named "b" to R1 in
the collection named by "/a", so /c will still identify R1, not the folder
that was identified by "/a", so there is no reason for /c/a to identify
the collection (unless /c/a originally identified the collection, in which
case it falls under the criteria of my message below, i.e. that there was
another binding to /a).
Cheers,
Geoff
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 10/24/2006 12:28:19 PM:
> Geoffrey M Clemm schrieb:
> >
> > My response was incomplete. In case the server does support binding
> > loops, but /a was the only binding to the collection, so the REBIND
> > effectively deletes the collection, then the server would fail the
> > request with DAV:new-binding in the DAV:error status response message
> > (since the collection does not contain the new binding, since it has
> > been deleted).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
>
> Well. But if there's another binding to b, such as /c, all is fine,
> right? "/a" would be gone, but would be accessible as "/c/a".
>
> Best regards, Julian