Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> From: "Sankar Virdhagriswaran" <email@example.com> To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cc: <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:39:32 -0500 Subject: Re: IETF Versioning Meetings >are implicitly selected as well. This doesn't require any additional >protocol support. > Great! >Since the conflicts report is an XML document, you should be able to extend >it to handle more specialized forms of conflicts supported by a particular >server. Does this cover the use cases of interest? > From the conflict resolution perspective, this is correct. I have not seen the format of the XML DTD (or is it just an XML document) for the conflict report, so I can't say for sure. However, specification of the 'states' in which a versioned resource can be at is important for this to work right. In particular, 'state' in which a versioned resource was at when a method was executed (e.g., checkout) needs to be tracked at the right level of granularity. Additionally, these states need to be gotten from the conflict report (as perhaps property) of the versioned resource.