- From: Eric Sedlar <Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:14:16 -0800
- To: "Jim Amsden" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
- Cc: "Acl@Webdav.Org" <acl@webdav.org>
This reinforces the direction we had been pursuing of not using <DAV:resourcetype> for too much. For example, using it to indicate whether or not a resource is a principal would mean that even non- collection principals would show up as folders in WebFolders, which is not good. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Amsden > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 9:53 AM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org > Subject: Re: DAV:resourcetype > > > So does this mean we can extend DAV:resourcetype with nested content? This > sould simplify some of the resource types introduced by versioning. > > > > [You have to have a long memory to put this post in context.] > > In an attempt to determine what would happen if we extended the > 'DAV:resourcetype', I tried WebFolders (vintage Win2000Pro 5SP1) against a > server that answered a variety of values for resource type. > > The empirical evidence is that resources that answer an non-null value for > DAV:resourcetype are always interpeted as type 'Web Folder'. > > For example, I tried the following combo, and the resource shows up as a > folder. > <DAV:resourcetype><FOO:foobartype/></DAV:resourcetype> > > I also tried 'extending' collection as follows: > > <DAV:resourcetype><DAV:collection><DAV:version-selector/></DAV:col > lection></DAV:resourcetype> > > and > > <DAV:resourcetype><DAV:collection/><DAV:version-selector/></DAV:re > sourcetype> > > > and they seemed to work ok (i.e., were interpreted as WebFolders and could > be opened and browsed, etc.). > > Regards, > Tim > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 13:18:10 UTC