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

Renaming "target" (was: PROPFIND instead of REPORT)

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 16:13:10 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200012222113.QAA08938@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com

   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?

After mulling over this some more, I think Tim is on to something
here.  Several times at the last IETF meeting, I heard folks use 
the term "target" to mean "the resource identified by the request-URL"
as in "the target of the POST request is ...".  This certainly
would lead you to believe that the "target" of an operation on
a version-controlled resource is identified by its DAV:target
property.  Which is exactly what we don't want people to think.

I believe that a more meaningful (and less misleading) term for
DAV:target would be DAV:checked-in.  This has several benefits:
- you can test whether a resource is checked in by testing if
  it has a DAV:checked-in property (that's pretty intuitive)
- it is symmetric with the DAV:checked-out property

Then all we need to do is rename the SET-TARGET method (I think
"UPDATE" works fine), and we're all set.

I'll make a query/replace pass through the protocol, and if nothing
breaks, I'll post a 10.12 draft for your consideration.  I need to
get a 10.12 draft anyway, to make the fixes that Greg and Tim have
asked for (clarifying checkin behavior for MERGE activity, and
adding XML to the DAV:comment and DAV:creatordisplayname properties).

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 16:14:08 GMT

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