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: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:26:51 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103196EC8@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I agree with Lisa's criticism of my counter-proposal,
i.e. that it prevented DAV:all-dead-prop from being
used as a property name.

To avoid the introduction of the DAV:include element,
and to reflect that fact that we are "adding stuff to what
DAV:allprop returns", another minor variant we could consider
would be:

<propfind xmlns="DAV:">
  <allprop>
    <checked-in/><checked-out/><version-name/>
  </allprop>
</propfind>

Cheers,
Geoff


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian F. Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 1:31 PM
To: Lisa Dusseault; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: PROPFIND allprop with more properties (was AW: Resource
class )


> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 6:28 PM
> To: Julian F. Reschke; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: PROPFIND allprop with more properties (was AW: Resource
> class )
>
>
>
> > > >    <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.

Maybe you should go back to the proposal. We have suggested adding an
<include> element as child of <propfind>, which can be used to specifically
add properties to those which would be reported by <allprop>. This allows to
get the RFC2518-<allprop> *plus* specific properties from DeltaV/ACL with
one call.

> 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

So do I. Please check what we proposed -- you were quoting from Geoff's
example, not ours.

We are currently doing it this way (with "include" in our own namespace):

<propfind xmlns="DAV:">
  <allprop/>
  <include>
    <checked-in/><checked-out/><version-name/>
  </include>
</propfind>

> 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.
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2001 11:27:46 GMT

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