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: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:41:01 +0200
To: "Greg Stein" <gstein@lyra.org>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEHKEHAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Greg Stein
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:16 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Label header vs PROPFIND depth 1
>
>
> As one more voice, I support Tim's position:
>
> * the Label is applied against the Request-URI
> * a version resource results from that operation
> * the PROPFIND(Depth=N) is applied to that *resource*
>
> The basic problem that we're arguing is "precedence". What applies first?
> Depth or Label?

That's not the only problem we're discussing. Some more:

- what happens if the collection isn't versioned?

- is the entity returned upon GET/Label on a VCR a variant of the VCR? HTTP
says: yes, by definition.

> I believe Label applies first. It is part of the lookup process for the
> resource to operate on. Then you start your operation, in this case
> PROPFIND, which is defined to use the Depth: header.
>
> I'll also note that mod_dav applies the Label first, which means that
> Subversion and ClearCase do the label first :-)

I don't have any problem with this, as long as we can agree on consistent
behaviour for the case where the request URI is a non-version-controlled
collection.
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 20:10:04 GMT

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