RE: PROPFIND instead of REPORT (was Re: Minutes Delta-V breakout meeting 14-Dec-00)

There are other XML structural possibilities which will work though:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
  <propfind xmlns="DAV:">
    <prop>
         <creator-displayname/>
         <checkin-date/>
    </prop>
    <versions>-5</D:versions>
  </propfind>

The meaning of this would be defined to be: show me these listed properties,
for the last five versions [1], for every resource in the scope of this
PROPFIND request (we may want to allow servers to limit this kind of request
to depth 0 but that's easy).

Since DAV servers MUST ignore elements they don't understand [2], this ought
to work on any server. Even if not, since the client will only send this
kind of request to a server which it knows to support versioning (from the
OPTIONS response), this won't mess up any server at all.

Disclaimer:  REPORT always seemed to me to be relatively useful as a new
method.  I just wanted to counter the logic that this can't be done in a way
that is completely compatible with PROPFIND

-- Lisa

[1] Syntax I used here for "last five" borrowed from RFC2068, section
14.36.1

     "o  The final 500 bytes (byte offsets 9500-9999, inclusive):

          bytes=-500"

[2] RFC2518, section 14

   "All DAV compliant resources MUST ignore any unknown XML element and
   all its children encountered while processing a DAV method that uses
   XML as its command language."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M.
> Clemm
> Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 9:50 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: PROPFIND instead of REPORT (was Re: Minutes Delta-V breakout
> meeting 14-Dec-00)
>
>
>
> At the recent IETF meeting, JimA proposed that we use PROPFIND instead
> of REPORT to obtain information from the server that requires
> arguments to qualify what kind of information is required.  Although
> an appealing thought, after mulling this over, I don't see how we
> could do this in a way that is compatible with PROPFIND but
> does not violate the property value DTD's.
>
> Jim's recent post describing a request of this kind doesn't really work:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
>   <propfind xmlns="DAV:">
>     <prop>
>          <creator-displayname/>
>               <versions>show-last-five</D:versions>
>          <checkin-date/>
>              <versions>show-last-five</D:versions>
>     </prop>
>   </propfind>
>
> If you indent this consistently, it becomes:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
>   <propfind xmlns="DAV:">
>     <prop>
>          <creator-displayname/>
>          <versions>show-last-five</D:versions>
>          <checkin-date/>
>          <versions>show-last-five</D:versions>
>     </prop>
>   </propfind>
>
> which seems to be a request for creator-displayname, checkin-date, and
> a repeated request for a property named "D:versions" (I'm assuming
> that all elements should have been prefixed by "D:").
>
> Based on his original indentation, JimA probably meant:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
>   <D:propfind xmlns="DAV:">
>     <D:prop>
>          <D:creator-displayname>
>            <D:versions>show-last-five</D:versions>
>          </D:creator-displayname>
>          <D:checkin-date>
>            <D:versions>show-last-five</D:versions>
>          </D:checkin-date>
>     </D:prop>
>   </D:propfind>
>
> But now we've violated the DTD's for D:checkin-date and
> D:creator-displayname (which are supposed to be either empty or
> dates and strings, respectively, to display to the user).
>
> Currently, I think the avoidance of DTD ambiguity is worth
> the introduction of a new method (i.e. REPORT).
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>    From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>
>    Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:33:44 -0800
>
>    I'm afraid I'm a little confused, perhaps it's just the indenting.  Is
>    the <versions> tag supposed to be inside each the property
> name tags, or
>    parallel to them?
>
>    I'd suggest one only needs one <versions> tag per PROPFIND
> body, because
>    it's pretty nonsensical to ask for one property over 5 versions, and a
>    different property over 50 versions, all in one request. the client is
>    more likely to make separate requests.
>
>    Another suggestion is to reuse the "range" syntax and logic (e.g.
>    byte-range headers).  This allows a "last-n" selection, as well as "m
>    through n" or "first n".  Then we don't need to define custom syntax or
>    logic to pick which versions to show.
>
>    The basic idea, I think, is sound.
>
>    lisa
>
>    -----Original Message-----
>    From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
>    [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Amsden
>    Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 7:26 AM
>    To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
>    Subject: RE: Minutes Delta-V breakout meeting 14-Dec-00
>
>
>    <lisa>
>    Hmm, this really argues for using PROPFIND since the client
> can say what
>    props they want for the version.  Perhaps instead of using
> attributes in
>    the
>    body of PROPFIND request (I never really understood where they
> would go)
>    there could just be an XML element to tell the server whether
> the client
>    wanted version detail or not:
>
>    PROPFIND thisresource
>
>    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
>      <propfind xmlns="DAV:">
>        <versions>show-last-five</D:versions>
>        <prop>
> 	    <creator-displayname/>
> 	    <checkin-date/>
>        </prop>
>      </propfind>
>    </lisa>
>    <jra>Lisa, here's what we were planning:
>
>    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
>      <propfind xmlns="DAV:">
>        <prop>
> 	    <creator-displayname/>
> 		 <versions>show-last-five</D:versions>
> 	    <checkin-date/>
> 		<versions>show-last-five</D:versions>
>        </prop>
>      </propfind>
>
>    This is more compatible with 2518.
>

Received on Monday, 18 December 2000 13:57:43 UTC