Pardon for vanishing into a JavaOne-induced coma for a week. I'm now
getting re-integrated with the world of APP.
On May 16, 2006, at 5:42 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
On 5/10/06, John Panzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is a separate question lurking here: Whether or not we
mandate
multiple URIs, or allow them, or ban content negotiation... is
there one
resource hiding behind the URI(s) or two?
...
In the long run, yes, as features get added in standards or in
implementations, it really matters.
- Do the two URIs have the same behavior in terms of access
control, and show the same ACL
- Would locking one cause the other to be locked
- Do they have the same metadata, e.g. creation date and last-
modified date, owner, etc.
- Do they both get deleted together
(Reading Tim's very different answer, he's right about the general
case talking to any old server, but he might be wrong if a specific
standard says "There is one resource behind these two URIs" and you
know you're talking to a server that supports that specific standard.)
OK, but I still think it's very shaky ground to say that "the
resource identified by these two URIs is the same resource", because
the semantics that follow from that are sprawling and hazy.
On the other hand, in a separate spec that defines, for example, some
security policy it would be perfectly sensible to assert that the
policy MUST be applied uniformly to this URI and that URI; that's
deterministic, useful to implementors, and not grounds for poorly-
bounded debates.
-Tim
