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


From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:37:32 -0800
To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
To be clear, I'm not against using REPORT.  I'm only for keeping the CORE
requirements from having to support REPORT.  I don't think CORE needs
anything but PROPFIND for getting version info from the server.  I do think
various advanced features are best served with REPORT.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M.
> Clemm
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 4:54 AM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROPFIND instead of REPORT
> OK, we've got 2 in favor of keeping REPORT (Tim, Greg) and 2 in
> favor of using PROPFIND (Lisa, Tim).
> Last week I was in the PROPFIND camp, and due to the "DTD problem"
> I switched to the REPORT camp.  I've convinced myself that there
> really is no DTD problem, because a PROPFIND for a "foo-report"
> could just be defined to return a "foo" in the response.
> So in fairness to the PROPFIND camp, I made a mental pass through the
> protocol, to see what the effect would be to replace all "foo" reports
> with a "foo-report" live property that returns a "foo" in the result.
> My impression was that this actually simplifies the protocol.
> In addition, it would allow us to mark some of the current live
> properties that really act as reports (i.e. DAV:successor-set,
> DAV:baselined-collection-set, etc.) as being "reports" without
> losing the benefits of being able to marshal them via PROPFIND.
> So I'd like to do the following: make an actual pass through the
> protocol marshalling the current reports as properties, and post
> the result for people to look at.  Since the arguments for keeping
> REPORT appear to be mostly aesthetic, this would help us to
> compare the two approaches (I'll keep the working draft with REPORT up
> on our web site).
> Cheers,
> Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2000 12:38:53 UTC

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