RE: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and DAV:ba seline resource type values

   From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com]

   Geoff: hey, you've been rumbled! From your ACL list posting:
       "For DAV:resourcetype in the versioning protocol, I
       really don't care much what we do with DAV:resourcetype
       there either, but figured we might as well argue about
       something in the versioning list while we're waiting
       for the area directors to review the versioning protocol."

   Which is it? You want to "develop some guiding principle" for future
   generations, or "don't much care ... but figured we might as well argue
   about something"<g>
   (You don't have to answer that question:-)

Not answer a question?  How would I be able to sleep at night if
I started not answering questions? (:-)

The reason I "don't care much" is that it is trivial for us
to implement additional DAV:resourcetype values in our DeltaV server,
and we just won't use them in our DeltaV clients (we'll use
DAV:supported-property-set and DAV:supported-method-set,
as any sensible client implementor should :-).

But I do care in general that DeltaV (and in general WebDAV)
protocols be designed to encourage good client design, and
it seems to me that there is a basic lesson from programming
language design (i.e. that typeless languages are more suited
to environments where clients and servers get changed)
that is being ignored in this drive to extend DAV:resourcetype.

So the part of me is responsible for earning a salary doesn't care,
but the part of me that wants the world to be a better place cares
deeply (:-).

Unfortunately (or fortunately :-), the part of me responsible for
earning a salary is going to have to take precedence for a while,
so my last generic word on this thread is:

I suggest that no DAV:resourcetype values are needed for the
DeltaV protocol extensions, but that I am willing to add any
set of (well-defined! :-) values on which the working group can
reach consensus.

So from now on, I will only be asking for clarification on
the semantics of proposed new DAV:resourcetype values, rather
than repeating why I'm against adding any at all (:-).

Cheers,
Geoff

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 11:02:14 UTC