- From: Jim Amsden <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 07:47:53 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
The reason we can't introduce new resource types for all of the versioning resources is because we have to support down-level clients that only know about DAV:collection. For new resources that down-level clients couldn't possibly know about, workspaces, activities, baselines, etc., we don't have this restriction. I agree with Greg and Tim. We should be as specific as we can about declared type and only compromise when required by interoperability considerations. 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 Tuesday, 19 June 2001 07:48:00 UTC