On Nov 30, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> I obviously shouldn't be able to read (all of?) the child's
>> properties, but there is some merit to wanting to be able to see
>> that the child's URI is present, even if I can't read the child's
>> properties
>
> Right.
>
>> or content. I might even want to expose the DAV:resource-type
>> property so you can tell if it's a collection, etc.
>
> I don't think RFC3744 would allow the latter, even though I would
> consider it harmless...
My read leads to the same conclusion.
>> This also nominally affects GET, when I'm rendering a directory
>> listing of the parent. I'd like to show all children, but if you
>> aren't allowed to see them in PROPFIND, it makes sense that they
>> should be hidden from the rendered listing as well.
>
> Correct. I personally think they should appear in both, potentially
> marked up as non-accessible (greyed out...).
OK, that's where I was heading. Cyrus had the same concern as
Kevin; that the file name may itself contain sensitive information,
and basically cited the same "FIRE-KEVIN.doc" example. :-) I'm
willing to live with that, though; there is plenty of precedent there
(eg. file systems).
Thanks for the feedback.
-wsv