- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:30:06 +0100
- To: "DeltaV \(E-mail\)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
"Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> wrote: > > > > Therefore, I recommend that the DeltaV specification *keep* the > > DAV:activity, DAV:version-history, and DAV:baseline resourcetype values. > > What about "version-controlled-resource", "version" and "workspace"? > > It would also be nice to identify a version-controlled collection in some > way that it's also recognizable as a collection (e.g. > > <DAV:resourcetype><DAV:collection/><DAV:version-controlled-collection/></DAV > :resourcetype> (I'm just doing this so Geoff will change color -- too bad I shan't be there to see it<g>) My view of the world... Here's the list of elements that could appear in a DAV:resourcetype. Some of these can be combined to provide a really meaningful experience for the client. Obviously, some combinations are invalid. <DAV:checked-in/> <DAV:checked-out/> <DAV:collection/> <DAV:working-resource/> <DAV:version-controlled-resource/> <DAV:version/> <DAV:version-history/> <DAV:workspace/> <DAV:version-controlled-configuration/> <DAV:baseline/> <DAV:activity/> So, <DAV:resourcetype> <DAV:activity/> </DAV:resourcetype would be good, that is, not surprisingly, an activity resource. <DAV:resourcetype> <DAV:checked-out/> <DAV:version-controlled-resource/> <DAV:collection/> <DAV:workspace/> </DAV:resourcetype> would be good too, it is a checked-out, version-controlled resource for a workspace collection. And so on. Tim
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 05:30:37 UTC