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: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 01:58:37 -0800
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20001222015837.E22947@lyra.org>
The name change seems a bit gratuitous. I don't see a problem with people
sometimes looking at the VCR as a redirector. Since they can't change the
VCR, it certainly doesn't feel all that separate.

Then again, since the VCR doesn't expose properties from the version, they
*do* feel distinct. And you CHECKOUT a VCR; that is distinct from what
happens when you CHECKOUT a version.

Renaming it would also play hell with the SET-TARGET method :-)

IMO, just leave it.

Cheers,
-g

On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 12:19:32PM -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
> 
> I think Tim may be right (what you call something often does
> matter :-).  So I'd like to open up the floor for a new name
> for DAV:target.
> 
> We have Tim's suggestion: DAV:based-on
> Some other possibilities: DAV:state, DAV:current-state
> 
> Any other suggestions?
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
>    From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com
> 
>    Geoff Clemm wrote:
> 
>    > 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).
> 
>    Geoff's comments are worth re-posting just to hammer the point home.
> 
>    A version-controlled resource (VCR) is NOT a reference/pointer/redirector
>    to a version -- it is a resource with the same content and dead properties
>    as a version (a 'copy' if you will).  Operations on the VCR do not affect
>    the version from which it was created.
> 
>    I'm struggling to determine the cause of the continued confusion.  Maybe it
>    is the historical name (version selector), or the fact that it has a
>    DAV:target property, or the fact that the protocol has an easy way to step
>    over the VCR to the vesion, or are people thinking of implementations?
> 
>    Would renaming 'DAV:target' to 'DAV:based-on' or such like help?
> 
> 
>    Tim

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 04:56:24 GMT

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