reformatting the DAV:version-tree report

• From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
• Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:27:23 -0500 (EST)
• To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
• Message-Id: <200101182127.QAA23723@tantalum.atria.com>

One last change from Tim's review that I felt deserved a separate thread:

Tim asked:

       Why are the DAV:version-tree elements nested?  It does not convey "true"
   structure, especially since 'A server MAY omit the DAV:prop and the
   successor DAV:version-tree elements ...'  I don't see that the nesting is
   helpful.

And I responded:

   Another good point (and one that Lisa made as well).
   Currently, we've defined the format of the DAV:version-tree-report
   to match just one of the many ways a client might want to
   display this information.  A flat list is simpler and
   more consistent - we can just use a DAV:multistatus response
   so clients can even re-use their multi-status parsing code.

Any objections?

Cheers,
Geoff

Received on Thursday, 18 January 2001 16:28:14 UTC