- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 10:33:56 +0100
- To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
"Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > > Von: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von > > Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com > > Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2001 10:17 > > An: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > > Betreff: Re: Issue: ALLPROP_AND_COMPUTED > > > > I think the key part of Geoff's post is "the subset that it can use". The > > problem with allprop is that it will return all the live properties > > irrespective of whether the client is aware of the properties' semantics. > > Sometimes this is what the client wants, say if it is naively displaying a > > property sheet; but most likely it is not since there is no way for the > > client to interpret the values or know if/how they can be changed. > > If agree with "to know if they can be changed". But, if they CAN be changed, > the way to do that is pretty obvious, isn't it???? Causing the update of a live property is usually not obvious. For example, changing the DAV:getlastmodified value is achieved by PUT-ing new content, changing the DAV:successor-set of a version is achieved by creating a version whose DAV:predecessor-set identifies that version, and so on. My point is that if, say, a versioning unaware client uses PROPFIND with DAV:allprop and retrieves the name and value of the DAV:successor-set property, the best the client can likely do is to render the XML value some way that is not going to be very meaningful; and the client certainly isn't going to know how to change that value. Tim
Received on Friday, 4 May 2001 05:35:42 UTC