W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: Bindings

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:12:01 +0200
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG \(E-mail\)'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCKEOIFBAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 8:12 PM
> To: 'Webdav WG (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: Bindings
>    From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>    > Reports should be only used when parameters are required for the
>    > request, and DAV:binding is not a parameterized request.
>    RFC3253 counter example: DAV:version-tree report -- could have been
>    replaced using a DAV:version-set report and the DAV:expand-property
>    report
> The DAV:version-tree report requires additional parameters (in
> particular, the list of properties to be retrieved).  It therefore
> must be a report, not a live property.  It is true that the
> DAV:version-tree report could be handled by a DAV:expand-property
> report, but that doesn't affect the fact that the DAV:version-tree
> report requires additional parameters, which is why it is a report and
> not a live property.

Wel, it requires additional parameters *because* it's a report. It wouldn't,
if a live property would have been chosen instead...

>    Another one: why have the report DAV:locate-by-history if a
>    DAV:version-controlled-resource-set property would offer the same
>    information?
> The DAV:locate-by-history report requires additional parameters
> (namely, the list of version history resources that are to be located
> in the folder identified by the request-URL).  Therefore it cannot be
> a live property, but must be a report.

This is just because the marshalling was defined to specifically to lookup
by by multiple VHRs (by the way: what's the use case for that?).

My point being -- the border between live properties and REPORTs isn't
nearly as well defined as you say.

> ...
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 15:12:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:26 UTC