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 16:22:57 +0200
To: "Tim Ellison" <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>, "Deltav WG" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEDIEHAA.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 4:06 PM
> To: Deltav WG
> Subject: RE: Label header vs PROPFIND depth 1
> ...
> >
> > Otherwise variant handling would differ between -- for instance --
> "Label"
> > and "Accept-Language" -- and that doesn't make any sense at all.
> No, the label: header does not apply to the members of the
> collection, just
> the request-URI resource.  It behaves the same way as the Depth: header of
> RFC2518, i.e. Depth: 1 only applies to the method at the request-URI
> resource and not recursively to the members.

Well, again I think that this is a major problem. It makes handling of the
"Label" header different from handling of other headers that selection
variants of a resource. What is the *benefit* of this special handling?

> > > ...and do we agree that it doesn't?  It just changes the resource that
> the
> > > method is applied to.
> >
> > Yes. But if the collection isn't versioned (does not vary on the Label
> > header), the Label header just should be *ignored* (for the collection),
> and
> > then *apply* to the indivual versioned members of the collection.
> No, it will be ignored for the target of the method, and ignored for the
> members of the collection.

So this is different from for instance handling of the "accept-language"
header. Can you give a reason why this would be desirable?
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 10:24:03 GMT

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