- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:21:02 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Cc: "'Wallmer, Martin'" <Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com>, 'Kevin Wiggen' <kwiggen@xythos.com>, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > You say "property of the binding" because it's natural to think > of bindings as having properties. If that's so natural, then > there's a strong reason to let it happen. ...I was using "property" as english word, not referring to a DAV property. If being hidden is a property of a binding, and a binding is part of the state of the collection, then it follows that the flag is part of the collection's state, right? > If we defined a feature to hide bindings, you could set up binding 'foo' > to resource A as hidden, whereas binding 'bar' to resource A as > visible. Then if you request 'ishidden' on 'foo' > the server returns 'true', and 'ishidden' on 'bar' returns false. And this is exactly what I want to avoid. If the property belongs to the parent collection, nothing is lost and we don't need a hack (a property that varies upon request URI). Q: to hide a directory entry, do you need write privileges on the collection the binding is in, or on the resource itself? > To do this in a more complicated manner requires justification > which I think we're approaching in a separate mail. Regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:21:59 UTC