- From: Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:09:30 +0100
- To: "Deltav WG" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> > I think it breaks a very basic assumption about PROPFIND's depth handling: > for a given collection member, you will get the same response element for > depth:1 on it's parent and depth:0 for a PROPFIND on itself. Wait, maybe I didn't make it clear. The label: header applies to the version-controlled resource identified by the request-URL; and then the depth operation proceeds on the labelled *version*. The only version with members is a versioned collection, whose members are version histories. > What's the motivation for this change? Currently I can't think of a reason, > and it certainly makes it harder to come up for consistent variant handling > in WebDAV. It is a short-hand for referencing the version associated with a version-controlled resource. Regards, Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ellison > Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 2:49 PM > To: Deltav WG > Subject: Re: Label header vs PROPFIND depth 1 > > > > "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> wrote: > > > given a collection "/a" and a VCR "/a/b", where "/a/b" has a version > > "/versions/b/1" with a label "labeltest", what would I expect from a > > > > PROPFIND /a > > Depth: 1 > > Label: labeltest > > > > ? > > > > According to section 8, the label header should only be applied when the > > request URL is a VCR (which isn't the case here). However, a > > > > PROPFIND /a/b > > Depth: 0 > > Label: labeltest > > > > *would* take the label header into account. > > > > This would make the PROPFIND results for /a/b depend on which is the > request > > URL for the PROPFIND, which definitively doesn't seem to be desirable. > > > > (A similar problem applies to COPY with depth > 0). > > Your interpretation is correct. The label: header is only applied to the > request-URL. Why is this undesirable? > > Regards, > Tim > >
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 09:09:58 UTC