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: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:05:08 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103196F39@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
   From: Julian F. Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]

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

   This one won't interoperate with old servers, because <allprop> is
   defined to be EMPTY (in RFC2518).

Argh.  Julian is of course right (again :-).  Although I will point
out (hopefully correctly, for a change :-), that you could nest the
DAV:include node inside the DAV:allprop, rather than inside the
DAV:propfind, i.e.

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

But either way (i.e. nesting the DAV:include inside of DAV:propfind,
or nesting it inside of DAV:allprop) is fine with me.

   > From: Stefan Eissing
   > ...
   > 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...

I agree with Julian that there is no reason to put the "include"
element in its own namespace.  RFC 2518 requires a server to ignore
any XML element it doesn't understand, irrespective of what namespace
it appears in.  The example in 23.3.2.2 does show the extension in
another namespace, but that is just an example.

Julian: Why would you prefer to have WebDAV extensions defined through
the IETF (such as DeltaV and ACL) use their own namespaces?  There
clearly is a reason to define non-IETF standardized properties in
their own namespace, but it is simpler to just have all IETF WebDAV
extensions use the DAV: namespace.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Monday, 28 May 2001 11:00:41 GMT

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