RE: version-tree REPORT on non-version-controlled resource

No offense taken!
(Sorry if I sounded offended ... I didn't feel offended :-).

But I'm glad that you followed up, because that saves me from
having to follow up my own post (which I hate to do :-).

In particular, I was going to add that in addition to the 403/409,
you should have 
  <DAV:error> <DAV:supported-report/> </DAV:error>
in the response body or DAV:responsedescription.  (See section 3.6).

We didn't want to have "must be version or VCR" in the precondition
for the DAV:version-tree report, to allow future extensions to allow
this report on other kinds of resources.

Cheers,
Geoff 


-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 1:31 PM
To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: version-tree REPORT on non-version-controlled resource


Geoff,

no offense intended.

I think it would be clearer if the status (being a VCR or a version) would
explicitly be listed as precondition.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 6:55 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: version-tree REPORT on non-version-controlled resource
> 
> 
> The meaning of these error codes is defined by 2616,
> and the DeltaV spec makes a point of not repeating information from
> the base spec (so that we automatically inherit any
> later revision of 2616, rather than conflict with it).
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:47 PM
> To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: version-tree REPORT on non-version-controlled resource
> 
> 
> OK,
> 
> this make sense.
> 
> The spec could be a bit clearer, though :-)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 6:43 PM
> > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: version-tree REPORT on non-version-controlled resource
> > 
> > 
> > No, not "400:Conflict.
> > 
> > Either "409: Conflict" if the resource could be put under 
> version control,
> > or "403: Forbidden" if the resource cannot be put under version control.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 11:30 AM
> > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > Subject: DAV:version-tree REPORT on non-version-controlled resource
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > what would be the expected response code for a DAV:version-tree 
> > report on a
> > resource which is not version controlled? Bad Request?
> > 
> > Julian
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2002 14:51:32 UTC