- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:36:55 +0200
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> Von: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Julian F. > Reschke > Gesendet: Montag, 28. Mai 2001 09:50 > An: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Betreff: 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 Clemm, Geoff > > Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2001 5:27 PM > > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > > Subject: RE: PROPFIND allprop with more properties (was AW: Resource > > class ) > > > > > > 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> > > This one won't interoperate with old servers, because <allprop> is defined > to be EMPTY (in RFC2518). > > So if you hit an old server, you'll have to two two additional requests > (<allprop> and <prop> with the three named properties), while with > <include>, it will be just one additional request (using <prop> to get the > three additional properties). > > BTW: chapter 23.3.2 of RFC2518 gives a very similar example for legally > extending PROPFIND. > I find the arguments in RFC2518 Ch. 23.3 (esp. 23.3.2.2) very convincing. Thus the most backward compatible solution is using include in its own namespace: <propfind xmlns="DAV:"> <allprop/> <DV:include xmlns:DV="DAV:deltav"> <checked-in/><checked-out/><version-name/> </DV:include> </propfind> where I don't specifically care what the namespace is (could also be "DAV:extended" or "DAV:addons-to-rfc2518"). If an implementor follows RFC2518, non-aware servers have to accept this message as a valid propfind/allprop (and indeed all I could test against do). Can someone of the more experienced DAVers suggest a good namespace? //Stefan
Received on Monday, 28 May 2001 04:37:14 UTC