RE: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and DAV:bas elin e resource type values

   From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.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.

But it's important to keep in mind what a WebDAV client will do with
this "type" information.  It is not a compiler that will be
hard-wiring in assembly language method offset values based upon the
declared signature of a declared variable type.  It is a client
putting up an icon or a menu list.  And this client is going to
encounter resources that have been extended with additional properties
and methods.  What is better ... that the client say "unknown resource
type" and give you nothing, or that it put up an icon that is designed
to reflect a set of live properties and methods that are known to
exist on that resource?

Cheers,
Geoff

Received on Sunday, 3 June 2001 00:25:58 UTC