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

RE: Feature request for CHECKIN/OUT extension

From: Julian F. Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:22:26 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEJFCNAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 10:50 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Feature request for CHECKIN/OUT extension
>    From: Julian F. Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
>    [The use case] requires that a checked-in version can carry it's
>    own URI (of the checked in version) in its content. This is a
>    mandatory requirement for the versioning system we have to expose
>    through WebDAV, so we have to either define a proprietary way to
>    achieve this, or the protocol needs an extension. We think this use
>    case may apply to many others, and this is why we are trying to get
>    a discussion and possibly a consensus here...
> OK, that makes it clearer.  Most systems I know of use RCS-style
> keyword expansion to achieve this effect, so that the server can
> provide this functionality uniformly, rather than depending on
> the client to do so.  But there certainly are advantages to the
> approach you suggest (i.e. explicit insertion by the client).

Also, keyword expansion doesn't work very well with non-text formats, right?

> My preference, though, would be to defer standardizing this
> particular feature, since the spec is already quite complex
> and it is an orthogonal feature that could be provided later
> if experience indicates that this "client side" metadata insertion
> is preferred over "server side" keyword expansion.

Well, I myself don't have the choice to defer it. I'm looking for the best
way to integrate it into our deltaV implementation... Maybe we could at
least consider to define the root element of an optional response body for
CHECKOUT (because that would IMHO be the best way to return additional
information to the client)?

Regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 10 August 2001 05:22:53 UTC

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