Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: DAV:resourcetype for version resources"
To: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
cc: reuterj@ira.uka.de, jjh@ira.uka.de, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:58:01 +0200
From: Juergen Reuter <reuterj@ira.uka.de>
Message-ID: <"iraun1.ira.0038201:000824.185805"@ira.uka.de>
Subject: Re: Where have DAV:revision-set and DAV:working-resource-id/URL-set gone?
> ...
> Now, look at 14.1.1 and your concern will be answered. Version selectors
> have a DAV:version-history property. That has a DAV:version-set property.
>
> DAV:working-resource-set on the version history resource satisfies your
> other concern.
Right! My "short look" at draft 07 was a little bit too short.
DAV:version-set is exactly what I was looking for. I should not have
expected it to occur as part of the core versioning.
But then, DAV:version-tree-report is somewhat redundant, because you can
get all information of a DAV:version-tree-report by examining
DAV:version-set, if I understand right. Of course, while DAV:version-set
is just a set and makes no assumptions about the order of the revisions,
DAV:version-tree-report will report them in a terse form of a nested tree
(which, however, is not unique). And, of course, as the core versioning
part of the protocol must somehow provide access on the set of all
revisions, dropping DAV:version-tree-report is no choice. I will have to
think more deeply about this (and read 07 in more detail).
> >...
> > Section 3.5.1:
> > ==============
> > Mmh, the former DAV:predecessor-set had the advantage that I could use
> > the same code for revisions and working resources when traversing through
> > the revision tree including working resources as special leaves of the
> > tree. But DAV:checked-out probably better reflects the concept of
> > working resources. So I am not really sure what is better.
>
> What is the problem here? I don't understand the issue.
Just a matter of style (clean spec design versus code reuse). Actually,
I can live with both solutions.
Thank you for your comments!
Bye,
Juergen