- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:26:51 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I agree with Lisa's criticism of my counter-proposal, i.e. that it prevented DAV:all-dead-prop from being used as a property name. To avoid the introduction of the DAV:include element, and to reflect that fact that we are "adding stuff to what DAV:allprop returns", another minor variant we could consider would be: <propfind xmlns="DAV:"> <allprop> <checked-in/><checked-out/><version-name/> </allprop> </propfind> Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Julian F. Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de] Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 1:31 PM To: Lisa Dusseault; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Subject: RE: PROPFIND allprop with more properties (was AW: Resource class ) > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 6:28 PM > To: Julian F. Reschke; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: PROPFIND allprop with more properties (was AW: Resource > class ) > > > > > > > <D:propfind xmlns:D="DAV:"> > > > > <D:all-dead-prop/> > > > > <D:checked-in/> > > > > <D:checked-out/> > > > > <D:version-name/> > > > > </D:propfind> > > > > > > > > > <D:propfind xmlns:D="DAV:"> > > > <D:all-dead-prop/> > > > <D:prop> > > > <D:checked-in/> > > > <D:checked-out/> > > > <D:version-name/> > > > </D:prop> > > > </D:propfind> > > > > Could you explain? > > > > Old servers will ignore the "include" element -- a new client > > will be aware > > that is was ignored because the additionally selected > properties will not > > turn up anywhere in the multistatus response. An old client > will never use > > the "include" element, therefore there'll be no > interoperatibility issues. > > I don't understand what you're saying about the "include" element. Maybe you should go back to the proposal. We have suggested adding an <include> element as child of <propfind>, which can be used to specifically add properties to those which would be reported by <allprop>. This allows to get the RFC2518-<allprop> *plus* specific properties from DeltaV/ACL with one call. > Nevertheless, I do have strong logic for putting the property names under > some container, and that's to distinguish property names from non-property > names. "all-dead-prop" is not a property name. "checked-in" is. If they So do I. Please check what we proposed -- you were quoting from Geoff's example, not ours. We are currently doing it this way (with "include" in our own namespace): <propfind xmlns="DAV:"> <allprop/> <include> <checked-in/><checked-out/><version-name/> </include> </propfind> > are glommed together in a list, then that's treating "all-dead-prop" as if > it was a property name. That prevents the server from ever having a > property called "all-dead-prop", since the XML element with that name was > used the way you're proposing.
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2001 11:27:46 UTC