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

Re: PROPFIND instead of REPORT

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 01:02:55 -0800
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20001221010255.Y22947@lyra.org>
I've always seen version history resources as separate beasts from the
version selector. So yes... N+2.

And for that reasons, I've also expressed by reluctance to put them into
Core without an example case from a "Core server" mindset person.

Cheers,
-g

On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 05:57:13PM -0800, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 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

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 03:58:59 GMT

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