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

Re: reformatting the DAV:version-tree report

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:47:35 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569D9.0035CC59.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


Nope.
(oops, 'nope' as in 'no objections', not nope as in 'don't do it')


"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com> on 2001-01-18 09:27:23 PM

Please respond to "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>

To:   ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
cc:
Subject:  reformatting the DAV:version-tree report





One last change from Tim's review that I felt deserved a separate thread:

Tim asked:

       Why are the DAV:version-tree elements nested?  It does not convey
"true"
   structure, especially since 'A server MAY omit the DAV:prop and the
   successor DAV:version-tree elements ...'  I don't see that the nesting
is
   helpful.

And I responded:

   Another good point (and one that Lisa made as well).
   Currently, we've defined the format of the DAV:version-tree-report
   to match just one of the many ways a client might want to
   display this information.  A flat list is simpler and
   more consistent - we can just use a DAV:multistatus response
   so clients can even re-use their multi-status parsing code.

Any objections?

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Friday, 19 January 2001 04:48:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:40 GMT