Subject: Re: DAV:resourcetype

From: "Jim Amsden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:52:41 -0500

So does this mean we can extend DAV:resourcetype with nested content? This
sould simplify some of the resource types introduced by versioning.

[You have to have a long memory to put this post in context.]

In an attempt to determine what would happen if we extended the
'DAV:resourcetype', I tried WebFolders (vintage Win2000Pro 5SP1) against a
server that answered a variety of values for resource type.

The empirical evidence is that resources that answer an non-null value for
DAV:resourcetype are always interpeted as type 'Web Folder'.

For example, I tried the following combo, and the resource shows up as a
folder.
  <DAV:resourcetype><FOO:foobartype/></DAV:resourcetype>

I also tried 'extending' collection as follows:

<DAV:resourcetype><DAV:collection><DAV:version-selector/></DAV:collection></DAV:resourcetype>

and

<DAV:resourcetype><DAV:collection/><DAV:version-selector/></DAV:resourcetype>

and they seemed to work ok (i.e., were interpreted as WebFolders and could
be opened and browsed, etc.).

Regards,
Tim

---

From: "Eric Sedlar" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:14:16 -0800

This reinforces the direction we had been pursuing of not using
<DAV:resourcetype> for too much.  For example, using it to indicate
whether or not a resource is a principal would mean that even non-
collection principals would show up as folders in WebFolders, which
is not good.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Jim Amsden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 9:53 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: DAV:resourcetype
>
>