- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:37:56 +0000
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I propose that we disallow CHECKOUT of a collection version. Tim Ellison Java Technology Centre, MP146 IBM UK Laboratory, Hursley Park, Winchester, UK. tel: +44 (0)1962 819872 internal: 249872 MOBx: 270452 ---------------------- Forwarded by Tim Ellison/UK/IBM on 2000-11-15 11:35 AM --------------------------- Tim Ellison 2000-11-10 10:45 AM To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org cc: From: Tim Ellison/UK/IBM@IBMGB Subject: Working collections It seems a long time since this was last discussed -- well I've forgotten the explanation so here goes: We agreed that URLs to versions exist outside the normal DAV namespace. This is concept is variously reflected in the spec as virtually hosted URLs (http://repo.webdav.org/his/23/ver/42) and 'stolen' parts of the root collection namespace (e.g. http://www.webdav.org/repo/wr-157.html). Clients should not, therefore, expect to be able to construct new URLs based on these server maintained URLs (i.e. removing / adding segments to reach other resources). Q1: We know that a versioned collection is a mapping from names to version histories. So when you check out a versioned collection what can you do with the resulting working collection? Are you constrained to creating members that bind to histories only? Are you prevented from creating new bindings at all? Q2: Can you delete bindings from a working collection -- presumably yes since if you can't change a working collection's members you can only use them to change properties? (There is clearly a good case for checked out collection version selectors). When the server sees a URL to a working collection, say of the form http://repo.webdav.org/vr/9/wr/1/foo it can 'know' about the form of these URLs to determine that everything up to 'foo' is the URL to the working collection and 'foo' is the member of that collection, but there would be (typically) no relationship between that URL and the URL of the history resource that 'foo' is currently bound to; so it would not be possible to slash-through 'foo' to reach other resources. Tim
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2000 06:45:07 UTC