Next message: Tim Ellison OTT: "RE: Members of a collection"
From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
To: gclemm@Rational.Com (Clemm, Geoff)
Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org ('Delta V')
Message-ID: <2000Feb17.100300.1250.1478910@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:07:04 -0500
Subject: RE: Adding a DAV:default-revision prope
<geoff>
Can you clarify what you had in mind by:
"down-level clients are unable to refine based on the Revision-Selector"?
</geoff>
Simply that down-level clients don't know to set the Revision-Selector
header, since that is defined by the versioning spec.
<geoff>
Having a DAV:default-label requires that a client first do a PROPFIND to see
what the default-label of a versioned resource is, and then do a LABEL to
adjust that label.
Not a big deal, but I don't yet see any advantage that DAV:default-label
would have over DAV:default-revision to balance this (admittedly minor)
disadvantage.
</geoff>
My point is only that I think there is value to being able to select on
either revision identifier or label, since labels may be more meaningful to
clients than stable-hrefs. For example, by default select 'R1.0' etc.
I don't feel strongly about it though :-)
Tim
>
>Cheers,
>Geoff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 4:55 PM
>> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Adding a DAV:default-revision prope
>>
>>
>>
>> <geoff>
>> If a Revision-Selector header is specified, the specified
>> revision is the target. If a Workspace header is specified,
>> the specified working resource is the target. If neither
>> header is specified, the DAV:default-revision of the versioned
>> resource is the target.
>> </geoff>
>>
>> If the DAV:default-revision is only allowed to be a revision
>> identifier then
>> I think this is too brittle to be generally useful
>> (down-level clients are
>> unable to refine based on the Revision-Selector). However,
>> if you allowed a
>> label or a revision identifier then I can see that this is a helpful
>> simplification of basic versioning since I believe that
>> labels will be used
>> extensively at that level.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>