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

RE: Marshalling Depth > 0 responses for REPORTs, WAS: Replacing t he Label header with a DAV:labeled-version report

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:34:38 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEGEFCAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 3:20 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Marshalling Depth > 0 responses for REPORTs, WAS: Replacing
> t he Label header with a DAV:labeled-version report
>
>
>
> A Depth:infinity DAV:locate-by-history request makes no sense,
> so having it return something ugly (i.e. a 403 for every non-collection
> member) is not a problem.

Well.

It does make a lot of sense if you don't know which collection the VCR is
in -- this is why we need it.

So the use case is:

- I have a VHR
- I need to lookup VCRs on a server for which the DAV:version-history points
to my VHR

How am I supposed to do that if not using depth infinity?

> On the other hand, a Depth:infinity DAV:labeled-version request does
> make sense, and it is reasonable for it to return a 403 for every
> non-version-controlled member of the collection.
>
> In general, when a request asks you to apply a report to every member
> of a collection, it seems reasonable to indicate the result (possibly,
> an error) for each member of that collection.

Which basically renders all REPORTs that apply to collections (are there
others?) useless if you depth = 0 or depth = 1 isn't enough.
Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 10:35:36 GMT

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