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

RE: Re (2): The Depth header...

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:20:40 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8ABB9@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
The protocol for updating a baseline-controlled collection with a
new baseline is to apply the UPDATE request to the version-controlled
configuration, which is a non-collection resource and therefore Depth:0
is sufficient and appropriate.  As a side effect, an arbitrarily large
number of version-controlled members of the baseline-controlled collection
will also be updated (and these will be enumerated in the response to
the UPDATE request, but not because of a Depth header).

So the only UPDATE request for which a Depth:infinity header is appropriate
would be one that is updating all members of a collection with a specifid
label (i.e. with DAV:label-name in the request body).


-----Original Message-----
From: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de [mailto:Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de]

> For the UPDATE method, Tim pointed out that
> Depth:0 is the more natural default for the Depth
> header since Depth:infinity only makes sense when the label
> feature is supported and DAV:label-name is specified in the
> request body.  That argument makes sense to me.

So what's the natural default for a baseline ? My impression
was that this would be sort of infinity (In the end limited by the members
of the configuration).
Received on Monday, 10 September 2001 16:21:15 UTC

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