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

RE: again: OPTIONS semantics

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:22:07 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10783928F@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I would classify two different servlets as two different
servers, and so if the servlet handling the OPTIONS request
does not know about the update feature, then it is expected
to not return "update" in the DAV header.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 5:16 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: again: OPTIONS semantics



Just taking an example from section 7:

"Additional OPTIONS Semantics
If the server supports the update feature, it MUST include "update" as a
field in the DAV response header from an OPTIONS request on any resource
that supports any versioning properties, reports, or methods."


So assuming my DAV namespace is separated into two parts (for instance by
servlet) "/a" and "/b". Both parts of the server namespace support
versioning, but only "/a" supports workspaces. Should the "update" feature
be reported on "/b" and it's descendants?

The spec says "yes", but I don't think this is implementable (for instance,
the servlet responsible for "/b" may not even know about the existence of
"/a").

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 17:23:21 GMT

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