RE: the DAV:comparison report

Geoff,

I agree with your synopsis and support the change.  

	Thanks,

	Mark




> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M.
> Clemm
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 11:28 AM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: the DAV:comparison report
> 
> 
> 
> During a proof-read pass over 10.13, it occurred to me that the
> DAV:comparison report is too vague to provide a significant degree of
> interoperability.  The example suggests it is useful for comparing two
> collections, but how often does one really have an "old" and a "new"
> copy of a collection on the server?  A smart client will keep track of
> the changes made on the client, and only update the server with the
> changes, not a new copy of the entire collection.  And even if one did
> have both collections on the server, one usually wants a "smart"
> compare that notices when a collection is "moved", instead of
> reporting a a delete and an add for each member of the moved
> collection.
> 
> As suggested in the text of this report, it is really for
> comparing two baselines, which is of significant value since the
> DAV:version-set of a baseline can be huge (and thus not something
> one would want to download to a client), but the difference between
> two baselines will often be manageable (and useful) information.
> 
> So I propose that we convert the DAV:comparison report into a
> DAV:baseline-comparison report, and move it from the "general option"
> section into the baseline option section, where it will be of
> significant value for interoperability.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 17:11:39 UTC