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

Re: live props on a VCR

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:55:11 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569B9.0051F61A.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>

I think "SHOULD be the same" would be misleading, for example the last
modified time of the VCR should not be the same as its target.

Let the spec. be quiet since the property report can be used to trivially
retrieve properties from the target resource.  Given that the VCR and the
version are separate resources there is no precedence for having their
properties synchronized (beyond the initial VERSION-CONTROL or SET-TARGET).


That's completely fine... no big deal if some must differ. However, we
probably insert a "SHOULD be the same" phrase. That at least lets people
know that the live props will be the same unless something really prevents


On Mon, Dec 18, 2000 at 08:11:36AM -0500, Jim Amsden wrote:
> I agree. However, we should note that the values may differ.

Greg Stein wrote:
> The spec is pretty clear in 2.1.3 that dead properties of a version
> resource
> must also be exposed on the VCR. It also says that live props may differ.
> But it would be good to know if a VR's live props must also be exposed on
> the VCR.
> Specifically, I want to get the DAV:version-name from the VCR (rather
> issue a second PROPFIND against the DAV:target of the VCR).
> I don't see anything in the spec about exposing VR live props thru the
> (I could have easily missed it so far). I'd like to state that they *are*
> exposed.
> Cheers,
> -g
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 09:56:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC