- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:35:16 -0400
- To: DeltaV <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Yes, the consensus of the working group was that we would not use a bug in a single (albeit very widespread :-) implementation as a driver for this issue. So the current argument for removal of these resourcetype values is not because they interact poorly with the buggy client, but rather that they are not needed for any client (buggy or not). Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] > From: Jim Amsden > 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. I thought we had rather strong guidance that working around bugs in a single implementation was NOT recommended. Clarification, Jim? I'd also point out that frequently it will be OK even with buggy clients to introduce new resource types. For example, I don't suppose it will be that easy for non-versioning-aware clients to stumble across URLs of collections of version-histories, activities, baselines and workspaces. Not all of these new resources are even browsable, and they may not appear in any regular URL space that regular clients are expected to use.
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 17:29:41 UTC