Re: DAV:revision-resourcetype

From: Tim Ellison OTT (Tim_Ellison@oti.com)
Date: Thu, Jan 27 2000

  • Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: DAV:revision-resourcetype"

    From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
    To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
    Message-ID: <2000Jan27.091222.1250.1458919@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
    Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:12:42 -0500
    Subject: Re: DAV:revision-resourcetype
    
    
    This thread has diverged from my understanding of the resource type.
    
    I thought that the resource type was simply, workspace, config, etc.  this 
    discussion implies that the type is a MIME type.  This is new to me.
    
    Tim
     ----------
    >From: Geoffrey M. Clemm
    >To: ietf-dav-versioning
    >Subject: Re: DAV:revision-resourcetype
    >Date: Thursday, January 27, 2000 12:28AM
    >
    >   From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
    >
    >   I never thought having MKRESOURCE create a versioned resource was
    >   necessary. The scenarios in the goals document talk about creating a
    >   resource and getting it in some reasonable initial state before 
    committing
    >   it to versioning.   The base case is create an initial resource with
    >   MKRESOURCE and then version it with VERSION.
    >
    >The main use of DAV:revision-resourcetype is to tell the server how to
    >store the revisions of that versioned resource.  For a simple
    >resourcetype (like text/xml), there might be several "storage types"
    >(e.g. compressed, text-delta, binary-delta).
    >
    >So trying to infer the DAV:revision-resourcetype from the
    >DAV:resourcetype of the first revision will not always be sufficient.
    >
    >   Having MKRESOURCE  create
    >   versioned resources seems like unnecessary method overload. The fact 
    that
    >   we are having trouble determining the resource type is an indication of 
    the
    >   consequences of such an overload.
    >
    >I'll take this opportunity to modify a statement I made in an earlier
    >message.  Instead of: "the DAV:resourcetype of each revision of a
    >versioned resource must be the same as the DAV:revision-resourcetype
    >of the versioned resource", I should have said: "the DAV:resourcetype
    >of each revision of a versioned resource must be compatible with the
    >DAV:revision-resourcetype of the versioned resource".
    >
    >Cheers,
    >Geoff
    >
    >