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

RE: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and DAV:bas eline resource type values

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:35:16 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1018E24B1@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: DeltaV <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Yes, the consensus of the working group was that we would not
use a bug in a single (albeit very widespread :-) implementation
as a driver for this issue.

So the current argument for removal of these resourcetype values
is not because they interact poorly with the buggy client, but rather
that they are not needed for any client (buggy or not).  


-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]

> From: Jim Amsden
> The reason we can't introduce new resource types for all of the
> versioning
> resources is because we have to support down-level clients that only know
> about DAV:collection. For new resources that down-level clients couldn't
> possibly know about, workspaces, activities, baselines, etc., we don't
> have this restriction. I agree with Greg and Tim. We should be as
> specific
> as we can about declared type and only compromise when required by
> interoperability considerations.

I thought we had rather strong guidance that working around bugs in a single
implementation was NOT recommended.  Clarification, Jim?

I'd also point out that frequently it will be OK even with buggy clients to
introduce new resource types.  For example, I don't suppose it will be that
easy for non-versioning-aware clients to stumble across URLs of collections
of version-histories, activities, baselines and workspaces.  Not all of
these new resources are even browsable, and they may not appear in any
regular URL space that regular clients are expected to use.
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 17:29:41 UTC

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