- From: Tim Ellison <tim@peir.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:56:07 +0100
- To: "DeltaV \(E-mail\)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
It would appear that there are two camps represented on the list. Those that want more info in DAV:resourcetype, even if that means duplicating information that can be deduced by DAV:supported-live-properties et al. Those that want the opposite, i.e. downplay DAV:resourcetype and rely on the capabilities of a resource to determine it's 'type'. Pistols at dawn? A democratic vote? Reasoned debate? Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: 02 June 2001 21:51 > To: DeltaV (E-mail) > Subject: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and > DAV:baselin e resource type values > > > Currently, the versioning spec defines a few special values for > DAV:resourcetype. > > It has been pointed out in a current thread that this is only > done in a few > cases, > whereas in most cases, the type of a resource is inferred from the > DAV:supported-live-property-set. > > To make this more consistent, I propose that we remove those redundant > resource > types, which means that you will be able to tell whether or not > something is > an > activity, version history, or baseline, by looking at its > DAV:supported-live-property-set, > as is done for the other versioning resources. > > This follows the Goland "you are done when you can't delete anything" > protocol principle. > > Cheers, > Geoff >
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2001 18:56:16 UTC