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

Re: PROPFIND instead of REPORT

From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:50:17 -0500
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF7756E876.251B9D47-ON852569BA.0061EEB9@raleigh.ibm.com>
Sounds good to me.

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).

Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2000 15:00:18 UTC

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