Branko Čibej wrote:
> solo turn wrote:
>
>> sorry for beeing unclear before. i did want to write that the standard
>> should include a unique method of retrieving versions, and not leave
>> it to the server. and i'm still wondering what drawbacks this could
>> have - personally i do not see any for such a simple and natural
>> problem. for me its something like "leave the url syntax to be defined
>> by the server" for http servers.
>>
>>
> Well, I can only suggest that you start the process for revising the
> current WebDAV/DeltaV RFC.
I'd be surprised if you can get three implementors of different DeltaV
servers into one room and get them to agree on a single format. That
being said, I'm still not sure what the problem is.
If the client is for a single server, just rely on the format it's
using. RFC3253 mandates that a version URI is immutable, that is it'll
never change.
On the other hand, if the client is supposed to work with multiple
servers, PROPFINDing the version URIs really is trivial.
Best regards, Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 23 22:24:32 2005