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

RE: REPORTS

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:55:54 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8ABAA@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'DeltaV'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Yes, looking at DAV:supported-report-set is the correct way 
to determine if a report is supported by a particular resource.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Raymond [mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 1:27 PM
To: Eric Sedlar
Cc: 'DeltaV'
Subject: Re: REPORTS


Hi,

Section 3.1.5 defines the DAV:supported-report-set property, I believe you
should query this property (PROPFIND) and see if the expand property report
is returned.

Regards,
Peter Raymond - MERANT.

Eric Sedlar wrote:

> What's the official way to see if expand-property is supported?  Just
> to try it?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ellison
> > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 1:03 PM
> > To: 'DeltaV'
> > Subject: RE: REPORTS
> >
> >
> > "John Hall" <johnhall@xythos.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: John Hall [mailto:johnhall@evergo.net]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:58 AM
> > > To: 'Tim Ellison'; 'DeltaV'
> > > Subject: RE: REPORTS
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There were no objections raised in the meeting or when the
> > > > minutes were published.  I'd consider that a consensus.
> > >
> > >
> > > It was the equivalent of slipping language in a bill at
> > > reconciliation time, without debate, after midnight when
> > > everyone else had gone home, then rushing the bill out for
> > > signature before anyone noticed.
> >
> > Hey, if you can run a country that way, I'm sure we can write a spec
like
> > that<g>
> >
> > > MAY is more appropriate than SHOULD given the late date at
> > > which the change was made, the manner of the change, and the
> > > fact that a commercial implementation of the spec will not be
> > > implementing this report and will recommend that clients who
> > > wish to be interoperable avoid it as well.
> > >
> > > And if there is no difference between MAY and SHOULD, then
> > > there should be no objection to making it MAY.
> >
> > Let's agree on what it _ought_ to say rather than on the process that
got
> > us to this point or what you will recommend.
> >
> > Given that the report will be useful in a number of interesting
> > scenarios I
> > think it is a useful optimization that servers SHOULD implement.
> > Note that
> > clients are free not use use it, and servers are free not to implement
it
> > and both will be within the spec.  But servers should be encouraged to
> > implement it and clients should be encouraged to look for it and use it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tim
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 14:56:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:42 GMT