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


From: Boris Bokowski/OTT/OTI <Boris_Bokowski@oti.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:25:22 -0500
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6CCCD498.700830D6-ON852569BA.00631AC8@ott.oti.com>
> To be clear, I'm not against using REPORT.  I'm only for keeping the 
> requirements from having to support REPORT.  I don't think CORE needs
> anything but PROPFIND for getting version info from the server.  I do 
> various advanced features are best served with REPORT.

Then what about putting version history resources into core versioning? In 
document management systems, the history resource for a version like:
could be just:
The DAV:version-set property would then play the role of the history 
report. Except that there would be no predecessor/successor information, 
but if everything is linear anyway, who cares...

BTW, for core versioning server implementors, it might be interesting to implement GET applied to a version history 
resource (the result of which is not spec'd).

Note that since last Saturday, even Greg wants to implement version 
history resources :-)
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)


P.S. Just for the record: I'm in the REPORT camp, but REPORT doesn't have 
to be in core.
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2000 13:29:57 UTC

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