Re: IETF Versioning Meetings

Geoffrey M. Clemm (gclemm@tantalum.atria.com)
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:15:32 -0500


Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 17:15:32 -0500
Message-Id: <9903112215.AA16058@tantalum>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
To: sv@hunchuen.crystaliz.com
Cc: sv@hunchuen.crystaliz.com, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <013801be6b36$1ad89480$d0acddcf@yokohama.crystaliz.com>
Subject: Re: IETF Versioning Meetings

   From: "Sankar Virdhagriswaran" <sv@hunchuen.crystaliz.com>

   >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.

We have not yet defined the conflict report DTD, but it would be
extensible using the standard XML extension mechanism (i.e. servers
can provide additional elements, and clients would ignore elements
that they don't understand).

   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.

Adding new properties to revisions, and reflecting these properties in
extended XML elements in the conflict report, is something the server
should be free to do.

Cheers,
Geoff