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

RE: Label header vs PROPFIND depth 1

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:17:23 +0200
To: "Tim Ellison" <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>, "Deltav WG" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEDFEHAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ellison
> Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 3:10 PM
> To: Deltav WG
> Subject: RE: Label header vs PROPFIND depth 1
> "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
> > I think it breaks a very basic assumption about PROPFIND's depth
> handling:
> > for a given collection member, you will get the same response
> element for
> > depth:1 on it's parent and depth:0 for a PROPFIND on itself.
> Wait, maybe I didn't make it clear.  The label: header applies to the

Seems so.

> version-controlled resource identified by the request-URL; and then the
> depth operation proceeds on the labelled *version*.  The only version with
> members is a versioned collection, whose members are version histories.

This seems to apply to the case where I have version controlled resources in
a version controlled collection. But what happens if the collection itself
isn't version-controlled?

> > What's the motivation for this change? Currently I can't think of a
> reason,
> > and it certainly makes it harder to come up for consistent variant
> handling
> > in WebDAV.
> It is a short-hand for referencing the version associated with a
> version-controlled resource.

Misunderstanding :-)

I wasn't asking for the motivation for this *feature*, I was asking for the
motivation for changing a basic feature about how PROPFIND works on
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 09:17:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:48 UTC