Re: The document's address

Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com> Fri, 08 March 2013 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A53721F8828 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 08:26:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i7H8UMblofnC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 08:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A8A921F8825 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 08:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UE06p-0000fD-JE for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:25:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:25:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UE06p-0000fD-JE@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <atlunde@panix.com>) id 1UE06c-0000aF-6s for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:25:14 +0000
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com ([166.84.1.89]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <atlunde@panix.com>) id 1UE06V-0001AF-P2 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 16:25:14 +0000
Received: from [192.168.15.3] (unknown [184.78.58.209]) by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C331534085; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 11:24:46 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <513A10D2.9070502@panix.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 10:24:50 -0600
From: Albert Lunde <atlunde@panix.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <DF0A84C4-AEAB-4716-B23F-FB3BA48BDE3C@gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1301171948100.2101@ps20323.dreamhostps.com> <CA+hEJVXz61Z16v5scW=YnM_5f6MY==PBySor82hRFA+rbuDuZw@mail.gmail.com> <E1445F85-E1EA-4B2E-AE96-62361EFC025D@gbiv.com> <CA+hEJVWww72deBu9nWTxJax+XX8u7E=wez37hmZJtRR0jtPTVA@mail.gmail.com> <513A06D3.6030802@gmx.de> <CA+hEJVU_=UFZZLv9zHfz0dVXaVkVX3RzKDbvBKHD03eOt5iXsg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+hEJVU_=UFZZLv9zHfz0dVXaVkVX3RzKDbvBKHD03eOt5iXsg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=166.84.1.89; envelope-from=atlunde@panix.com; helo=mailbackend.panix.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.596, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.628, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UE06V-0001AF-P2 7d1bda806f0fe4b7537df8230558dc4e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: The document's address
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/513A10D2.9070502@panix.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16992
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 3/8/2013 10:10 AM, Nicholas Shanks wrote:
> On 8 March 2013 15:42, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> That implies a concept of hierarchical ownership that simply does not exist
>> in HTTP. It might for some servers, but there's no guarantee.
>
> Can you provide an example (make one up) where ownership cannot be
> defined as hierarchical and accumulative?
>
> I am suggesting that HTTP's concept of "ownership" (for purposes of
> replacing cache entries) be defined by the specs to be hierarchical,
> since if I own / and I want to sabotage /subdir/ all I have to do is
> log in to the server and replace/delete it.

That's only true for a server based on a simple file system with no 
aliases.  I used to run a Apache web server where the home page and the 
top-level menu content were all aliased in from another directory, and 
htdocs was owned by root and rarely changed. This was to prevent things 
like Dreamweaver from nuking unrelated content.

But this is an implementation detail, unrelated to what's on the wire; a 
dynamic database-driven site, like a Web CMS, can implement completely 
different scopes of control.