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

resourcetype (was: RE: Core versioning issues and nits)

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:30:55 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569EB.003F4483.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>

I agree with Lisa.

(other than the comment "somebody could set the 'DAV:checked-in' property
to ANY value" because (1) just 'somebody' should not be using the DAV:
namespace, especially without consideration of the current specs., (2)
servers should enforce (1), and (3) servers that did have an opionion about
DAV:checked-in would definitely disallow setting any value, so clients
would fail very early.)


Tim Ellison
Java Technology Centre, MP146
IBM UK Laboratory, Hursley Park, Winchester, UK.
tel: +44 (0)1962 819872  internal: 249872  MOBx: 270452

"Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> on 2001-02-05 10:58:35 PM

Please respond to lisa@xythos.com

To:   "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>,
Subject:  RE: Core versioning issues and nits

>    I agree that determining type by the absence of properties is
>    sub-optimal; I'd say it's not very reliable.
> How is it any less reliable than looking for a particular value
> in a "resourcetype" property?

A particular value on a particular property can be preserved even when
the protocol changes (whether the protocol is changing as a result of
sanctioned IETF activity or independent vendor activity).  Also, a
particular value on a particular property is less likely to appear "by

In contrast, the absence of a property is less likely to be preserved
when extending the protocol: somebody will come up with a new useful
value for the property, and break clients that relied on that property
being absent.  Or, on an non-versioning server like IIS 5.0 that
supports dead properties, somebody could set the "DAV:checked-in"
property to ANY value, and no matter what value it's set to, it risks
breaking clients that look for that property.

I'm not saying this is broke (particularly if the DAV:supported-methods
comes back as a property).  It's just not as reliable as I would prefer.

Received on Tuesday, 6 February 2001 06:31:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC