- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 16:04:31 +0200
- To: "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Jim, even of depth operations aren't supported, we still have several issues with the LABEL header. In particular, allowing GET to act on the label makes the version by *definition* a variant of the VCR. I didn't have the impression that anybody is willing to support that design decision... Julian > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Amsden > Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:56 PM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: Label header vs PROPFIND depth 1 > > > I'd be happy with deprecating non-0 depth header. There are > better ways to > get related versions of resources. This would seem to solve the problem > with minimal effect on the spec, and provide one-trip access to a > specific > version of a resource (for diff purposes, etc.). > > > > > Geoff, > > - I'd like to see the label *header* deprecated > - I'm happy with the LABEL method and the label-name-set property > - I think that PROPFIND/label should be replaced by a specific REPORT > - I'm unsure about other methods that are currently affected by the > header -- what were the requirements...? > - Servers that decide to implement LABEL and DAV:label-name-set, but no > not > support the label header should *not* report the LABEL feature in OPTIONS. > > Julian > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > > Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 4:54 PM > > To: 'Deltav WG' > > Subject: RE: Label header vs PROPFIND depth 1 > > > > > > I am not surprised the Label header is proving to be problematic. > > The last time I tried to get rid of it (obviously unsuccessfully) > > was about a year ago. > > > > My first choice would be to deprecate the Label header altogether, and > > to instead define a DAV:labeled-version report on a VCR, whose > > parameters were a label and a list of property names. The result of > > this report would be the values of the specified properties on the > > version selected by the specified label from the VCR identified by the > > request-URL. > > > > An alternative approach would be to deprecate the use of the Label > > header with a non-zero Depth request (either because of an explicit > > non-zero Depth header, or because a request is non-zero Depth by > > default). > > > > I'd be interested in responses on the following three questions: > > > > (1) Do these approaches address the issues raised? > > (2) Is there another approach that could be considered? > > (3) Which approach do you prefer? > > > > If we can get consensus on an approach, I'll add it to the RFC 3253 > > Errata document. > > > > Cheers, > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 3 May 2002 10:05:21 UTC