- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:29:29 -0400
- To: Deltav WG <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
From: Tim Ellison [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com] "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> wrote: > So this is different from for instance handling of the "accept-language" > header. Can you give a reason why this would be desirable? So, I think the reason it is the way it is, is so that the results of the depth operation conform to the definition of multistatus, i.e. that the results are related by collection membership. "the multistatus XML element for a collection resource with member URIs MUST include a response XML element for each member URI of the collection, to whatever depth was requested" If the label: applied to each member of the version-controlled collection, then the results would be a set of versions that were not related by membership. The difference between my interpretation and Tim's interpretation is that I am assuming that only the method is affected by the Label, while Tim is assuming that the Label affects both the method and the recursion itself. In other words, by my interpretation, the recursion is: method ( resource, label, depth ) { method (resource, label, 0); if (depth != 0) { foreach_internalmember(member, resource) { method ( resource, label, depth-1 ) } } } while by Tim's interpretation, the recursion would be: method ( resource, label, depth ) { method (resource, label, 0); if (depth != 0) { foreach_internalmember(member, resource, label) { method ( resource, label, depth-1 ) } } } I believe my interpretation is more straightforward, and produces more predictable results. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 12:30:03 UTC