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

RE: splitting up the DAV:repository-report

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 18:26:05 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10D9F24@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, acl@webdav.org
I just noticed that once you split up the DAV:repository-report,
it no longer satisfies the criteria for a report (i.e. requires
additional parameters for the request), so I guess that means we
just have a few live properties, i.e. DAV:workspace-collection-set
and DAV:activity-collection-set for versioning, and
DAV:principal-collection-set for ACL.  This should make Russ happy,
since now there is *no* linkage (copied or otherwise) between the
ACL and versioning protocols.  (Actually, that makes me happy too :-).


-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:geoffrey.clemm@rational.com]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 11:12 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org; acl@webdav.org
Subject: splitting up the DAV:repository-report

We were planning on re-using the REPORT method and the
DAV:repository-report in ACL protocol, but we've gotten
feedback that coupling the two protocols this tightly
is undesireable, and that the generic DAV:repository-report
is a confusing/misleading.

To address this concern, I propose that we split the
DAV:repository-report into a separate report for each
special type, i.e. DAV:workspace-location-report
and DAV:activity-location-report for versioning
and DAV:principal-location-report for ACL.

The definition of the REPORT method would then appear
in both the ACL protocol and the Versioning protocol,
thus removing any dependencies between them.

Any objections?

Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 18:26:46 UTC

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