W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Creation time of a version.

From: Tim Ellison <tim@ellison.name>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:38:43 +0100
To: "Deltav WG" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FDEHJMOEIDFPFLBKEICGOEGACGAA.tim@ellison.name>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
> Sent: 18 April 2002 14:26
> To: tim@ellison.name; Deltav WG
> Subject: RE: Creation time of a version.
>
>
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ellison
> > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 3:13 PM
> > To: Deltav WG
> > Subject: RE: Creation time of a version.
> > ..
> >
> > > Wouldn't that always be identical to DAV:getlastmodified?
> > >
> >
> > Depends on your interpretation of last modified (namely whether
> > it includes
> > property value modifications).  A version's (live) properties may be
> > modified, so the timestamps may differ.
>
> Good point.
>
> So from Edgar's point of view, DAV:creationdate would make more
> sense.

Yes.

> Alas, can a client rely on that?

I think so, the spec. for DAV:creationdate says that it is time time when
the resource was initially created (has a non-null state).  In Edgar's
scenario, that is the time that the version was captured.  So I think
clients should rely on that.

Regards,
Tim
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 10:10:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:43 GMT