RE: Re (2): compare-baseline report with subbaselines

I agree with Edgar that separate DAV:added-baseline and
DAV:deleted-baseline elements would make things easier for
clients, since they would not have to retrieve the
DAV:resourcetype for each added or deleted version to apply
special processing for subbaselines.

The same applies for DAV:changed-baseline over DAV:changed-version
if the server does not automatically recurse into changed
subbaselines. I don't have a strong opinion whether this recursion
should be done on client or server.

Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de

> We could:
> - Have subbaselines appear in DAV:added-version,
DAV:deleted-version,
> and DAV:changed-version elements.  This is reasonable, since a
baseline
> is a special kind of version
I would prefer to have DAV:added-baseline, DAV:deleted-baseline,
and DAV:changed-baseline elements. If not, the baseline aware
client has the
unnecessary work to find out whether it's a resource or a
configuration version.
And the non baseline client could be confused. Getting a
DAV:<x>-baseline element
would be easier to detect.

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 14:20:47 UTC