W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: Relationship between scopes and version histories

From: Wallmer, Martin <Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:57:50 +0100
Message-ID: <DFF2AC9E3583D511A21F0008C7E62106063A8A93@daemsg02.software-ag.de>
To: "'www-webdav-dasl@w3.org'" <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>

Hi,

>> If a server that doesn't support Delta-V recieves a client query 
>> that specifies <d:include-versions/> it SHOULD honor the request 
>> as if <d:include-versions/> wasn't specified.

I agree, in this case the server includes all the version, it knows about
(the latest).

Another point:
Assume we have a version controlled resource, a.xml in the scope /mycoll,
version resources of a.xml exist, <d:include-versions/> wasn't specified. 

If we say: 
  If a resource in scope has versions, the server SHOULD take care of
  versions as well.

the user might assume, that the version resources of a.xml are taken into
account. However, AFAIK nowhere is defined, where the VRs are stored, it may
be in /mycoll/history/a_xyz.xml or in /history/mycoll/a_xyz.xml for example.

So does this mean:
 - the behavior is implementation dependend or
 - the server should implicitly expand the scope to /history/mycoll 
   (which it has to do if <d:include-versions/> was specified).
?? 

Regards,
Martin


-----Original Message-----
From: E. Sinderson [mailto:elias@cse.ucsc.edu]
Sent: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2003 19:49
To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Relationship between scopes and version histories



I would like to put forth the following:

If a server that doesn't support Delta-V recieves a client query that
specifies <d:include-versions/> it SHOULD honor the request as if
<d:include-versions/> wasn't specified.

The logic is that if a server has a version (the only version) of a resource
in the query scope then it can easily include all the versions it knows
about. This approach will lessen the number of round trips needed to get a
successful response. The implementation is simple and shouldn't break
existing servers.

Am I missing something?


Elias


Julian Reschke wrote:

> Right.
>
> That's the purpose of making the *check* for the element required, but the
> support *optional*. Obviously we also want to make sure that the error
> condition can be properly detected, but that's a separated issue...
>
> Julian
>
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:22 AM
> > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Wallmer, Martin'; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Relationship between scopes and version histories
> >
> >
> >
> > > > 2. If the client specifies <d:include-versions />, the
> > > server MUST take
> > > care
> > > > of versions or MUST reject the request.
> >
> > I thought this was going to be optional for servers? To be clear, a
> > server that does not handle versioning must look for this element and
> > reject the request?
> >
> > That's fine, I was worried that the client wouldn't be able to tell the
> > difference between successful responses that did or did not check
> > versions.
> >
> > lisa
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 04:57:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:09 GMT