- From: Alan Kent <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:15:57 +1000
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org, ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:32:38PM -0400, Jim Amsden wrote:
> Since we agree that there *may* be
> circumstances where new DAV:resourcetypes will need to be introduced
> (otherwise its a pretty useless property), then any issues with current
> servers that don't parse DAV:resourcetype properly would have to be
> addressed anyway.
I don't have any strong opinion, but when I saw a recent mail that listed
about 5 values in <resourcetype>, it made me wonder if there was a subtype
hierarchy for all the values listed (especially when values such as
<version-controlled/> were added) or whether they were orthogonal concepts.
If orthogonal concepts were present, then they *could* be in separate
properties rather than introducing the concept of sub-types etc.
Eg:
<resourcetype>
<workspace/>
<collection/>
<version-controlled/>
</resourcetype>
*could* be done as
<resourcetype>
<collection/>
</resourcetype>
<version-controlled> TRUE <version-controlled/>
<workspace> TRUE </workspace>
I am not recommending it - just raising it as an alternative. I am still
struggling to understand all the versioning concepts flying around here
and after reading the DeltaV draft spec! In some ways I am happy to
see that people on this list are still trying to work out things too
(ie - its not just me!) Mind you it also makes me a little worried that
people are still trying sort out what basic concepts mean. And the
complexity of it all seems quite high to me (a new comer) at the moment.
But I guess that is why it is draft! :-) :-) :-)
ajk
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 20:16:48 UTC