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

RE: PROPFIND allprop with more properties (was AW: Resource class )

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:27:47 -0700
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HPELJFCBPHIPBEJDHKGKOEHKCFAA.lisa@xythos.com>

> > >    <D:propfind xmlns:D="DAV:">
> > >      <D:all-dead-prop/>
> > >      <D:checked-in/>
> > >      <D:checked-out/>
> > >      <D:version-name/>
> > >    </D:propfind>
> >
> >
> > <D:propfind xmlns:D="DAV:">
> >   <D:all-dead-prop/>
> >   <D:prop>
> >     <D:checked-in/>
> >     <D:checked-out/>
> >     <D:version-name/>
> >   </D:prop>
> > </D:propfind>
>
> Could you explain?
>
> Old servers will ignore the "include" element -- a new client
> will be aware
> that is was ignored because the additionally selected properties will not
> turn up anywhere in the multistatus response. An old client will never use
> the "include" element, therefore there'll be no interoperatibility issues.

I don't understand what you're saying about the "include" element.

Nevertheless, I do have strong logic for putting the property names under
some container, and that's to distinguish property names from non-property
names.  "all-dead-prop" is not a property name.  "checked-in" is.  If they
are glommed together in a list, then that's treating "all-dead-prop" as if
it was a property name.  That prevents the server from ever having a
property called "all-dead-prop", since the XML element with that name was
used the way you're proposing.

lisa
Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 12:29:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:41 GMT