- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:24:15 -0500
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
Actually, my suggestion below that RFC3253 is neutral wrt to the meaning of "resource identity" is probably somewhat misleading. In particular, there is the underlying assumption that you can make any version of a version-controlled resource appear at the location of that version-controlled resource (e.g. with an UPDATE request). This assumption is not very compatible with an attempt to have a URL define the "variant" of a resource (e.g. the Swedish variant), since any version checked-in at the Swedish variant URL would go into the version history and then be accessible at any other version-controlled resource for that version history. In addition, wrt to PROPFIND semantics, many important use cases would be broken if PROPFIND of a live versioning property could return different values at different URL locations. So there is a basic leaning towards "content and properties are the same at all URL locations of a given resource" semantics for a versioning server (at least, for version-controlled resources). Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@Rational.Com] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:09 AM To: WebDAV; Roy T. Fielding Subject: RE: bind draft issues From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] Geoff, as RFC3253 relies on the concept of bindings, could you please attempt to fill in what *you* think an identical DAV:resource-id needs to indicate? For RFC3253, two version-controlled resources are the "same" when they have the same version history. So the obvious implementation of the DAV:resource-id property for a version-controlled resources is the DAV:version-history property. Version and Version-History resources cannot be moved, so the URL at which the were created can act as their DAV:resource-id. So this allows RFC3253 to remain neutral on the question of what does "resource identity" mean about the results of various other HTTP and WebDAV methods. Note: the question of resource identity for an activity resource is not addressed by RFC3253, so that remains an open question. Since most versioning repositories store activity resources in some kind of database, resource identity for activities ends up not being much of a problem in practice though, since there usually will be some obvious implementation property that could be used as the DAV:resource-id property. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 10 March 2003 09:24:24 UTC