- From: Tim Ellison <tim@ellison.name>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:38:43 +0100
- To: "Deltav WG" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de] > Sent: 18 April 2002 14:26 > To: tim@ellison.name; Deltav WG > Subject: RE: Creation time of a version. > > > > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ellison > > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 3:13 PM > > To: Deltav WG > > Subject: RE: Creation time of a version. > > .. > > > > > Wouldn't that always be identical to DAV:getlastmodified? > > > > > > > Depends on your interpretation of last modified (namely whether > > it includes > > property value modifications). A version's (live) properties may be > > modified, so the timestamps may differ. > > Good point. > > So from Edgar's point of view, DAV:creationdate would make more > sense. Yes. > Alas, can a client rely on that? I think so, the spec. for DAV:creationdate says that it is time time when the resource was initially created (has a non-null state). In Edgar's scenario, that is the time that the version was captured. So I think clients should rely on that. Regards, Tim
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 10:10:05 UTC