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 18:15:08 +0200
To: "Tim Ellison" <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>, "Deltav WG" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEEAEHAA.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 5:57 PM
> To: Deltav WG
> Subject: RE: Label header vs PROPFIND depth 1
> ..
> > The label header is a variant selector as defined per RFC2616. If this
> > wouldn't be the case, including "label" in the "vary" header would be
> wrong.
> Well I've read the definition of a variant, and a version is certainly not
> a variant of a version-controlled resource.   And I've read the definition
> of the vary: header and it talks about the cache-ability of the result.
> What am I missing?

Let's see:

section 1.3 (terminology):

A resource may have one, or more than one, representation(s) associated with
it at any given instant. Each of
these representations is termed a 'variant.' Use of the term 'variant' does
not necessarily imply that the resource
is subject to content negotiation."

So any representation you can GET on a URI is a variant of this resource.

> If DeltaV implies that a version is a variant of a version-controlled
> resource then that must be fixed.

I'd turn it around: if you strongly believe that a version should not be
considered a variant of a resource, then at least the label header semantics
must be removed from the spec.
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 12:15:58 UTC

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