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

AW: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and DAV:baseline resource type values

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:44:31 +0200
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBKJABLJNMLJELONBKKENFCNAA.stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
> Von: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Clemm, Geoff
> [...]
>    It will also remove the possibility of ambiguity being
>    inadvertantly introduced by some later addition to the
>    specification (though due diligence would dictate that the future
>    designers avoid such pitfalls).
> This I believe remains the key argument.  Is future interoperability
> improved, unaffected, or harmed through the addition of these new
> resourcetype values?  My argument is the "like a duck" argument
> (i.e. if it looks like a duck and acts like a duck, even if it is some
> refinement of a duck, if your client does not know about that
> "duck refinement", it is better for your client to treat it as a duck
> than to treat it as an "unknown resource").

I think it's not only future interoperability, but also interoperability
as such which can be improved by explicitly stating the type of a resource.
Rumour has it that code can have bugs. Sticking to the analogies in this 
thread, if your mother-in-law does not report a property properly, the 
alligator might look like a duck and eat your client alive.


How about a <D:implements> property which has all supported flavours
of a resource? This could help keep resourcetype backward compatible.
Otherwise I would favour extending resourcetype...

Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 05:45:16 UTC

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