- From: Boris Bokowski/OTT/OTI <Boris_Bokowski@oti.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:25:22 -0500
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> To be clear, I'm not against using REPORT. I'm only for keeping the CORE > requirements from having to support REPORT. I don't think CORE needs > anything but PROPFIND for getting version info from the server. I do think > various advanced features are best served with REPORT. Then what about putting version history resources into core versioning? In document management systems, the history resource for a version like: http://dav.example.org/foo/document.htm?version=7 could be just: http://dav.example.org/foo/document.htm The DAV:version-set property would then play the role of the history report. Except that there would be no predecessor/successor information, but if everything is linear anyway, who cares... BTW, for core versioning server implementors, it might be interesting to implement GET applied to a version history resource (the result of which is not spec'd). Note that since last Saturday, even Greg wants to implement version history resources :-) (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Boris. P.S. Just for the record: I'm in the REPORT camp, but REPORT doesn't have to be in core.
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2000 13:29:57 UTC