Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: versioning-04 review"
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 22:40:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200004080240.WAA05704@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: Stable URLs
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
We can't insist that all resources have stable URLs. No current web
server does this that I know of, and it may be impossible to
support for many non-versioning inplementations.
I agree.
Stable URLs should follow WebDAV namespace collection rules.
I agree.
Some methods that operate through the stable URL might fail, like MOVE.
I agree
Even if the stable URLs did follow WebDAV namespace conventions,
the members of the collections identified by the intermediate URL
segments would probably not be meaningful names. However, they
would be members, and could be discovered using PROPFIND.
I agree.
Perhaps the BINDing spec needs to have some coupling with these
stable URLs, and the protocol should provide some way to view all
the bindings to a stable URL in order to obtain the more meaningful
names.
There is an (optional) "DAV:parents" property defined in the bindings
protocol, which contains a list of URL's of the collections that contain
bindings to that resource.
For revisions, these names could be the versioned resource
URL and a revision id.
The revision-id is available by running PROPFIND for DAV:revision-id
on the stable URL. Getting a versioned resource URL (I assume by
this you mean a user meaningful URL, as opposed to just a stable
URL for the versioned resource) is a bit harder.
For this, we need a versioning specific REPORT (since the binding
protocol won't know about versioned resource target behavior).
I think what we want here is a REPORT that takes a stable URL to
a revision or versioned resource, and returns a user URL (in the
default workspace) for that revision or versioned resource, and
returns an error if that revision or versioned resource is not
visible in the default workspace. (And yes, Tim, that's the report
you said you didn't want :-). It would then be reasonable to
allow a Workspace header to be specified for this report, so that
the client can request a user URL in *that* workspace for that revision
or versioned resource. We could call it the "DAV:user-url-report".
Cheers,
Geoff