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

Re: DAV:compare-baseline REPORT

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:35:32 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569F1.003A3003.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


> On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 09:50:40PM -0500, Boris Bokowski/OTT/OTI wrote:
> > > Now that we have the DAV:baseline-collection for a baseline,
> > > I agree that this is a much more appropriate value for the
> > > results of this report.  In particular, I'd just return the
> > > VCR URL from the DAV:baseline-collection (you could get the
> > > version URL from the DAV:checked-in property, if you cared).
> > >
> > > Does anyone object?
> >
> > Of course not :-)
> >
> > However, now that I have a supporter I can at least try to be
> > a bit more greedy ;-)
> >
> > For my anticipated use of this report, getting the version URLs
> > as well would be a substantial gain over having to query the
> > DAV:checked-in property for each change.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Another alternative to making the DAV:checked-in special (or
> saying that the version resource URL is explicitly returned),
> is to simply allow a DAV:prop element to exist in the report
> request, and each set of properties will be returned for each
> [VCR] href mentioned in the report.

Nah, DAV:prop is obsolete, think DAV:expand-property!

BTW the DAV:baseline-collection is defined as a collection of checked-in
version-controlled resources -- I assume that the collection itself is
'protected', i.e., servers will fail attempts to check-out those VCRs
otherwise the property definition is violated.

Tim
Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 05:37:55 GMT

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