Subject: Re: Bindings, was: Issue: URI_URL, proposed changes

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:01:33 -0400

<<
However, from an abstract point of view, multiple URIs can identify the
same
resource even if they live on separate HTTP servers. In particular, the
implementations wouldn't even know about the "other" URI, and it would be
impossible require both servers to return the same DAV:resourceid.

I believe you're talking about inter-server bindings.
Because of garbage collection issues, I suspect the server that actually
holds the resource will know about all bindings to the resource.  But more
importantly, I suspect all servers that bind to that resource will get the
resourceid from the server that actually contains the resource just as
they'd get other properties like the last modification date.

Did you have something else in mind?

I believe the resources should have a resourceid, but right now I can live
with a proposal that lacks it.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:39:15 +0200

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Jason Crawford
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 7:02 PM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Clemm, Geoff; 'Webdav WG (E-mail)'
> Subject: Re: Bindings, was: Issue: URI_URL, proposed changes
>
>
> <<
same
> I believe you're talking about inter-server bindings.

See, that's the issue. Whether you consider two resources to be the "same"
depends on your POV, and the layer you're look at. Consider the URI:

	humanlanguage:en:HTML%20version%of%RFC2518

I just made it up, and it identifies an abstract resource. I can claim that
the following URIs identify the same resource:

	http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html
	http://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/webdav/protocol/rfc2518.html

However, nobody will argue that this is the same type of "sameness" as
described in the BIND protocol. So, no, I wasn't talking about inter-server
bindings.