W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Workspace header and optional labeling

From: Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 10:59:29 -0400
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2A3EF94A.CDF82E7C-ON85256975.005147AF@raleigh.ibm.com>
Since -10 is the working group last call, we need to maintain "change bars"
between now and proposed standard last call. Since text documents rule, we
should keep a changes list at the end of the document to give a heads up to
readers. Just high-level items, not minor changes would probably be
sufficient. These will be removed in -11 and started again as we address
proposed standard last call feedback leading to -12.

We should also have a list of unresolved issues to discuss at the Dec
working group meeting. I think making labels optional is a prime candidate.
With all the discussions we've had on leveling in the last two years,
no-one has ever requested that labels be optional. Lisa brought it up and
provided some example repository vendors that don't support labels. You
have expressed support for making it optional. But the Jims' have been
pretty vocal on the other side. And I did submit a rebuttal on the recent
arguments. So I think this is a subject the working group should address.

The thing I liked about the workspace header is that it seemed to me the
logical resource namespace which represents the host domain, and the
functional grouping of resources supporting some web application is
orthogonal to versioning. By putting the workspace as a URL prefix,
versioning is invading this logical namespace with versioning details. This
doesn't seem ideal. Using a header let us parameterize how to interpret the
resource URL. However, such a header does not make it clear what context
other URLs in the request or response are evaluated in. I suggest that a
workspace header should apply to all URLs in the request and response. That
is, all operations are done in the context of the specified workspace. If
this needs to be overridden for a particular resource (say the destination
for a copy), then we can use the workspace prefix. How does that sound?

                    "Geoffrey M. Clemm"                                                                                          
                    <geoffrey.clemm@rational        To:     ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org                                           
                    .com>                           cc:     ckaler@microsoft.com                                                 
                    Sent by:                        Subject:     Workspace header and optional labeling                          
                    10/11/2000 08:50 AM                                                                                          

I've gotten no defenders of the "Workspace" header (Chris ... ?)
and no "rebuttal" to the most recent arguments for making labeling
optional, so I'll go ahead and prepare a working draft with those
changes.  Also, Greg's comments indicated that the protocol does not
provide sufficient motivation for workspaces, so I'll expand that
section with a few of the problems that they are intended to address.

Since these changes do not involve any changes to the semantics of the
protocol, they do not warrant a new internet draft, so I'll just post
a deltav-10.1 working draft on the web site, with deltav-10 remaining
the last call internet draft.

Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2000 11:08:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:45 UTC