- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:33:19 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Cc: "'Wallmer, Martin'" <Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com>, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org, Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: >>As long as we're discussing URI mappings that have been created on a >>server that complies to the BIND sppec (and this how we got >>here), this >>is incorrect. It is very clear that the mappings are part of >>the state >>of the collection, not of the resource they map to. > > > Again, how is that the case? What text makes that clear? If it's in Martin's request. You can find it back in the archive (a few weeks ago). > the bind spec, that's not a standard yet and I don't agree with that > "clarification". Nor is SEARCH. Martin's question was about how SEARCH can filter by resource names in presence of multiple bindings (as defined by BIND and implemented by Tamino/Slide). Martin, please correct me if I'm wrong. > For that matter, a 'parent-path' property would be useful too. It > would be a context-sensitive property like 'last-path-segment', but > there are many potential context-sensitive live properties. > 'getcontentlength' is one of those - a dynamic resource may well > behave differently depending on what URL is used to access it. Not those created by the multiple mappings created by the BIND spec. Lisa, please respect that Martin and I are *indeed* talking about bindings as defined by the BIND spec, and nothing else. If you have problems with what the BIND spec defines, please raise that on the WebDAV mailing list. Right now the BIND spec has only one open issue left (marshalling of bind loop conditions), and IMHO the plan is to last-call the document once the issue is resolved. Regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 10:33:21 UTC