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 > >