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: Julian F. Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:20:15 +0200
To: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEHKCFAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Stefan Eissing
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 10:37 AM
> To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: AW: PROPFIND allprop with more properties (was AW: Resource
> class )
>
> ...
>
> I find the arguments in RFC2518 Ch. 23.3 (esp. 23.3.2.2) very convincing.
> Thus the most backward compatible solution is using include in its own
> namespace:
>
> <propfind xmlns="DAV:">
>   <allprop/>
>   <DV:include xmlns:DV="DAV:deltav">
>     <checked-in/><checked-out/><version-name/>
>   </DV:include>
> </propfind>
>
> where I don't specifically care what the namespace is (could also be
> "DAV:extended" or "DAV:addons-to-rfc2518"). If an implementor follows
> RFC2518, non-aware servers have to accept this message as a valid
> propfind/allprop (and indeed all I could test against do).

I can't see why putting it into the DAV: namespace would be a problem.
Although I'd prefer to have other WebDAV related specs (like ACL and deltaV)
use their own namespaces, this one seems to apply to all WebDAV servers, no
matter whether any combination of ACL and DeltaV is implemented...
Received on Monday, 28 May 2001 05:20:36 GMT

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