FWD: [Geoffrey Clemm] RE: use of attribute to qualify property value
Ralph R. Swick (swick@w3.org)
Mon, 24 May 1999 09:05:56 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990524090556.02be1e80@127.0.0.1>
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 09:05:56 -0400
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
From: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
Subject: FWD: [Geoffrey Clemm] RE: use of attribute to qualify property value
>Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 22:49:50 -0400 (EDT)
>X-Envelope-From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@www10.w3.org Fri May 21 22:49:48 1999
>X-Sender: gclemmw@tantalum.atria.com (Unverified)
>Old-Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 18:14:51 -0400
>To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
>From: Geoffrey Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
>X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
>Subject: [Moderator Action] RE: use of attribute to qualify property value
>
>At 09:57 AM 5/20/99 -0700, Chris Kaler (Exchange) wrote:
>>The reason we had this was because there are different "types" of histories
>>that are available and different ways to "view" the history. We modeled
>>this (in this draft) as a property, and rather than having "n*m" properties,
>>we used a qualifier.
>
>I agree that there are different ways to view the history. But I believe
>that a general query mechanism such as DASL would be a better
>way to provide these reports, rather than a set of predefined property
>types and attributes.
>
>Until the DASL query mechanisms are defined, we get at least some
>level of report customizability through standard PROPFIND mechanisms.
>
>>I, personally, don't think that modeling history as a resource is viable
>>since there are several different ways that I want to view the history.
>>History information should be an XML "report".
>
>The results of PROPFIND is an XML report. It has the advantage of
>being understood by all browsers that implement PROPFIND, rather than
>being limited to just those browsers that understand the DeltaV extensions.
>
>Cheers,
>Geoff