Subject: RE: Bindings and Redirect Ref. teleconf. Mar. 1, 2000

From: "Slein, Judith A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:51:03 -0500

It's certainly a possibility.

The only problem I can see with relying on MKREF is that it would not just
update the target, but would replace the resource with a new resource.
That's probably harmless if it's an HTTP resource with no properties, but if
it is a WebDAV resource it might have properties that you would like to
preserve while updating its target.

--Judy

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Orton [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2000 7:05 PM
To: WebDAV WG
Subject: Re: Bindings and Redirect Ref. teleconf. Mar. 1, 2000

> Issue #6: Need to add rationale for why we use relative URLs. Server is
> required to store it as a relative URL.  Server MUST NOT change the
relative
> URL during a MOVE.
> 
> Raises the issue of needing separate methods for getting the value of a
> reference, and modifying the value of a reference.  Tentatively agreed on
> REFGET, REFSET (but noone likes these too much).

The original -00 spec allowed MKREF with Overwrite, could this be used
instead of REFSET?

joe

---

From: Greg Stein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:29:53 -0800 (PST)

Why would it have to delete the properties?

Overwrite is defined to "... overwrite the state of a non-null destination
resource ...". It is specified in terms of a COPY/MOVE, and we can state
that for a MKREF, it *only* overwrites the target.

There is no other language that forces us to interpret Overwrite as
"DELETE the resource first [implying the props are deleted]".

I really like Joe's idea.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/