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

RE: locate-by-history report vs. Depth header

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 15:49:14 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8B023@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "Ietf-Dav-Versioning@W3. Org" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Actually, the report clearly makes the most sense for depth=0 (perhaps
that's what you
meant to type?).

One instance where a non-zero depth parameter would make sense for this
report was if
you had a collection of workspaces (i.e. each internal member of the
collection is a
workspace).  You could do a Depth:1 locate-by-history report, in order to
find out where
a given version history is in each of those workspaces.

Cheers,
Geoff


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:29 AM
To: Ietf-Dav-Versioning@W3. Org
Subject: locate-by-history report vs. Depth header


Hi,

section 5.4 currently doesn't say anything about the relation between the
locate-by-history report and the Depth header (which defaults to "0" as per
definition of REPORT method).

Clearly, the report only makes sense for depth = 1. So what would we expect
for other values?

0: empty multistatus response?
infinity: forbidden?

Regards, Julian



[1]
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-20.1.htm#_Toc
524830576>
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 15:49:48 GMT

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