- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:11:30 +0200
- To: "Jim Davis" <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Davis > Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2002 10:01 PM > To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > Subject: RE: Scope - only collections? > > ... > > >I personally can't see why a collection would be required, and our > >implementation doesn't require that. So I agree with Jim and > yourself that > >this restriction should be lifted (I'll add that to the issues list for > >now). > > > >Jim originally proposed to allow any URI as scope. I think that could be > >done, although it would probably require some more work to get "depth" > >properly defined. Jim, do you think that would be worth the effort? > > Seems to me that depth makes sense only if the URI is a WebDAV collection > resource. If the URI is not a collection, the meaning is just undefined. Question: should we say what the depth means if the URI scheme is a hierarchical one?
Received on Friday, 5 July 2002 02:11:54 UTC