- 1 - Luke
On 11/1/05, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 31, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 31, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Luke Arno wrote:
> >>
> >>>> * "Note: deleting a member also removes it from all the collections to
> >>>> which it belongs."
> >>>
> >>> I don't think we ought to legislate this.
> >>
> >> I think that if an entry shows up in multiple collections, it's still
> >> the same entry, and the semantics of DELETE are "make this resource go
> >> away", so I think that it would be very surprising if we changed them
> >> to "remove from one collection". -Tim
> >
> > [...]
> > In message-based protocols, you should define the sender's
> > intent and expectations for a given message, not how the
> > recipient shall change its own state as a result.
>
>
> <http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceClarifyCollectionAndDeleteMethod>
>
>
> == Abstract ==
>
> make a necessary distinction between resource deletion and collection
> deletion. State the client intent on sending DELETE, and ensure APP is
> consistent with HTTP and WebDAV in that regard.
>
> == Status ==
>
> Open
>
> == Rationale ==
>
> APP up to 06 is overspecified; it conflates deletion of resources with
> the DELETE method with collection removal.
>
> == Proposal ==
>
> remove from "5.3.3 Deleting a Resource",
>
> {{{
> Note: deleting a member also removes it from all the collections to
> which it belongs.
> }}}
>
>
> and, add this text instead:
>
> {{{
> Note: deleting a member resource does not necessarily remove it from
> the collections in which it appears. The intent of DELETE in the Atom
> Protocol is to delete the resource identified by the Request-URI, not
> to remove it from one or more collections.
> }}}
>
> == Impacts ==
>
> draft06
>
> == Notes ==
>
> If we need client ability remove members from APP Collections (as
> opposed to the web), that's a separate matter and requires another Pace.
> This Pace is here to address overspecification only.
>
> cheers
> Bill
>
>
