Subject: Issue: LIVE_AND_NON_LIVE

From: "Jim Whitehead" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 16:21:05 -0700

This is a seemingly simple issue:

 The specification should explicitly state which properties are live, and
which are non-live.

It was initially raised by Judy Slein:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999JanMar/0025.html

- Jim

---

From: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 16:41:35 -0700

I'm not sure I agree with Judy's original post that "Other live DAV
properties (supportedlock, getetag) should be
copied / moved live if possible, but should not be copied / moved dead."

It seems to me that there are at least two kinds of live properties, the
distinction between which has caused confusion in the past (at least to me).

There are live properties which are typically read-only and calculated (or
only altered indirectly), such as lockdiscovery, supportedlocks, getetag,
creationdate, getlastmodified, resourcetype.  These should usually be
recalculated as the result of a MOVE or COPY so one might as well say they
are not moved or copied.

There can also live properties which are writable and which have an effect
on the server either immediately or at a later date (if they didn't have an
effect, they'd just be dead).  This category includes auto-checkout and
auto-checkin from DeltaV.  If they are writable, they should usually be
"written" when the resource is copied or moved.

There are also dead properties which are not calculated by the server, nor
is their value used by the server.

So the distinction of interest for MOVE/COPY is seemingly whether the
property is in theory writable, not whether it's live/non-live.

Can we get some more context about what the "issue" is?  is it only for
purposes of MOVE/COPY that the spec should distinguish whether between live
and non-live, or are there other reasons to distinguish?  Is the goal to be
able to define a way to identify which properties should be copied or moved?

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 4:21 PM
> To: WebDAV WG
> Subject: Issue: LIVE_AND_NON_LIVE
>
>

---

From: "Roy T. Fielding" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 16:50:31 -0700

>  The specification should explicitly state which properties are live, and

It would be better to specify which ones cannot be live (client must be
capable of writing them) and which ones cannot be dead (client is never
allowed to write them), since that is the interoperability concern.  I'm
not sure if that covers the whole set (i.e., some may depend on the way
that a resource is implemented).

Oh, and the issue should be labelled LIVE_AND_LET_DIE, because webdav
just isn't funny enough yet to reach draft standard status.

....Roy

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 09:18:56 +0200

> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 1:21 AM
> To: WebDAV WG

...and which of the live properties are "protected", right?