- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 18:42:31 -0700
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
- Cc: "DeltaV (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
This doesn't feel right. Tim's point about supersets worries me. And clients that don't look at enough scope to be able to differentiate future/private types. We have specific types of resources in the spec. Semantic/conceptual types of resources. It seems better to state "this resource is of <THIS> type" than to let it be inferred by the property set. That inference step is rather brittle over time. Cheers, -g On Sat, Jun 02, 2001 at 04:50:44PM -0400, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > 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 -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2001 21:37:03 UTC