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: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:10:06 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Deltav WG'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCENIEHAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

- I'd like to see the label *header* deprecated
- I'm happy with the LABEL method and the label-name-set property
- I think that PROPFIND/label should be replaced by a specific REPORT
- I'm unsure about other methods that are currently affected by the
header -- what were the requirements...?
- Servers that decide to implement LABEL and DAV:label-name-set, but no not
support the label header should *not* report the LABEL feature in OPTIONS.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 4:54 PM
> To: 'Deltav WG'
> Subject: RE: Label header vs PROPFIND depth 1
> I am not surprised the Label header is proving to be problematic.
> The last time I tried to get rid of it (obviously unsuccessfully)
> was about a year ago.
> My first choice would be to deprecate the Label header altogether, and
> to instead define a DAV:labeled-version report on a VCR, whose
> parameters were a label and a list of property names.  The result of
> this report would be the values of the specified properties on the
> version selected by the specified label from the VCR identified by the
> request-URL.
> An alternative approach would be to deprecate the use of the Label
> header with a non-zero Depth request (either because of an explicit
> non-zero Depth header, or because a request is non-zero Depth by
> default).
> I'd be interested in responses on the following three questions:
> (1) Do these approaches address the issues raised?
> (2) Is there another approach that could be considered?
> (3) Which approach do you prefer?
> If we can get consensus on an approach, I'll add it to the RFC 3253
> Errata document.
> Cheers,
> Geoff
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 11:10:44 UTC

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