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

RE: PROPFIND instead of REPORT

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:57:13 -0800
To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Cc: "Barry Lind" <barry@xythos.com>
Message-ID: <CNEEJCPIOLHKIOFNFJDPGEPNCAAA.lisa@xythos.com>
This is likely to clear up some confusion:  I was just discussing this stuff
with Barry Lind today, and we were unclear on the concept of what resources
or valid URLs must exist.

Our question was, for a document that has n revisions, how many valid URLs
(I'm avoiding the word resource) exist?
 n version resources, e.g. http://dav.example.org/foo/document.htm?version=n
 +1 version-controlled resource, e.g.
http://dav.example.org/foo/document.htm
 +1 version-history resource, e.g.
http://dav.example.org/foo/document.htm?version-history

So we're talking about a model with n+2 valid URLs?  Like Boris may have
done, I previously interpreted the versioning spec to require n+1 valid
URLs:  one for each version, plus one for the resource/history thing, which
I thought was one beast, rather than two.  Now it seems you're saying the
resource URL and the version-history-resource URL are two different things,
so the entire count is n+2.

If that's the case, then I'm dead against requiring a version-history
resource for servers implementing CORE.  Make the list of versions be a
property on the version-controlled resource, or let versions be discoverable
by adding an <allversions> tag to PROPFIND.  It doesn't matter much, just
keep it simple!

Lisa


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M.
> Clemm
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 11:44 AM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PROPFIND instead of REPORT
>
>
>    From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
>
>    On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 01:25:22PM -0500, Boris Bokowski/OTT/OTI wrote:
>
>    > Then what about putting version history resources into core
>    > versioning? In document management systems, the history resource
>    > for a version like:
>    >  http://dav.example.org/foo/document.htm?version=7
>    > could be just:
>    >  http://dav.example.org/foo/document.htm
>
>    I'd expect the second URL to refer to the "latest" version
> rather than the
>    version history.
>
> I'm sure Boris meant something like:
>
> http://dav.example.org/foo/document.htm?version-history
>
> as the URL for the version history resource, since
>
> /http://dav.example.org/foo/document.htm
>
> is the URL for the version-controlled resource.
>
> Note that we need to be a bit careful with the terms "refer" and
> "latest" in this context.  When a version-controlled resource is
> checked-in, its content and dead properties are the same as those of
> the version resource identified by the DAV:target of the
> version-controlled resource, but the URL refers to the
> version-controlled resource, not to that version resource, and the
> DAV:target is not necessarily the "latest" version (new versions can
> be created in the version history without changing the DAV:target of
> the versin controlled resource).
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 20:58:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:39 GMT