Subject: Re: AW: Issue: ALLPROP_AND_COMPUTED

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 10:33:56 +0100

"Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > Von: [email-masked]
> > [mailto:[email-masked]]Im Auftrag von
> > [email-masked]
> > Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2001 10:17
> > An: [email-masked]
> > 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

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 15:15:22 +0200

> Gesendet: Freitag, 4. Mai 2001 11:34
> An: Julian Reschke; [email-masked]
> Betreff: Re: AW: Issue: ALLPROP_AND_COMPUTED
>

Agreed. When I wrote my mail, I was thinking of dead properties.