W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: resourcetype; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

From: Mark A. Hale <mark.hale@interwoven.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 09:56:17 -0700
To: "Eric Sedlar" <Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com>, "Acl@Webdav.Org" <acl@webdav.org>
Cc: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FCEJIPPGHGNPMFLDIMEFCEHODDAA.mark.hale@interwoven.com>

I support adding information elements to <dav:resourcetype>. We've
encountered the same limitations with WebFolders and are happy to hear it
will be written for XP.



-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
[mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Eric Sedlar
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 9:23 AM
To: Acl@Webdav.Org
Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: dav:resourcetype; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

I've been successfully converted by Yaron to the belief that we should use
<dav:resourcetype> to indicate multiple pieces of type information (like the
set of interfaces supported) in the new standards (ACL, DeltaV, RFC2518--
the sequel).

This would mean that you might see something like:


as a property of a group (a collection principal) that is under version
rather than <is-principal> and <is-versioned>.

The major reason NOT to use <dav:resourcetype> was the WebFolders
bug, but I've now heard from multiple source that WebFolders has so many
bugs in it that it isn't worth excessive deference (and something like
is what people ACTUALLY use), that Microsoft is rewriting this for Windows
and the point that we'll just have to create another property to do the same
thing.  This also helps clients now that future properties like
are type information, since they will be grouped under <dav:resourcetype>.

However, I'm only in favor of making this change if we can apply it to ACL,
DeltaV and add clarifying examples in the new RFC2518.

Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 12:50:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:47 UTC