W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: BIND and DAV:checkout-set property

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:29:38 +0200
To: "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEMGIFAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:28 AM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: BIND and DAV:checkout-set property
> One could equally well make the argument that a binding-unaware
> client would be even more surprised when it encounters a checked-out
> resource whose URL does not appear in the DAV:checkout-set of
> its DAV:checked-out version.

I think this is less likely, but of course I can't speak of all clients.

Anyway, the spec says that the property identifies *resources*, not URLs or
bindings. Finally, I think we should try to decide what to do and *not*
leave that up to the server. If we do that, reporting all bindings obviously
would be a bad choice because there's always the potential for bind loops
causing the set of URLs for that resource to be ... big.

> I do not see anything in the current specification language that
> requires a server to do it one way or the other, so until we
> get a compelling reason to do it one way or the other, I'd probably
> leave the language as it is.

I think the spec (revision) really needs to clarify a few things regarding
binding behaviour, and this is one of those things.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 07:29:48 UTC

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