Next message: Eric Sedlar: "Re: Members of a collection"
Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC01FA521B@chef.lex.rational.com>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:44:44 -0500
Subject: RE: Members of a collection
I agree that this is not a problem, but it might be worth
having a couple of special status codes, i.e.:
4xx (No Such Revision)
4xx (No Such Working Resource)
and then reserve 404 for when there is no versioned resource
(or any other resource) at that URL. What do folks think?
Cheers,
Geoff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 5:05 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Members of a collection
>
>
>
> To determine the members of a collection on a versioning
> server, a client
> issues a PROPFIND. In a non-versioning world if you are told
> that /foo/ has
> a member /foo/bar then you have a pretty good chance that you can GET
> /foo/bar. However, in a versioning world your workspace may
> not select any
> revision of /foo/bar, so you 'see' that /foo/ has a /foo/bar
> but you get a
> 404 when you try to GET /foo/bar.
>
> This is going to be particularly interesting for 'browser'
> type applications
> that reveal one layer of the namespace at a time. However, I
> claim that
> this is no different than a non-versioning server showing its
> members, then
> a member being DELETEd before the client GETs it. One
> difference is that
> the versioning anomaly is more likely to happen.
>
> Just an observation.
> Tim
>