Message-Id: <199903151705.MAA17374@roxie.ede.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 14 Mar 1999 22:29:16 EST." <9903150329.AA17212@tantalum> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:05:38 -0500 From: Damon Poole <email@example.com> Subject: Re: default workspace vs. set-default method vs. default label Geoff, Your revised proposal sounds good to me. And actually, it seems more like an elegant solution than a compromise to me. :-) Cheers, Damon > Damon Poole and Jim Amsden both provide compelling (at least to me) > reasons for *not* following my suggestion to limit default version > selection to simple "set-default-revision" functionality. For example, > a branch or change-based server will probably want to require that > defaults be specified in terms of branches or change-sets, not isolated > revisions (thus ensuring some level of inter-resource consistency). > > So it sounds like a more acceptable proposal is to say that default > revision selection is specified by the revision-selection-rule of a > default workspace, and that minimally a server must support a > > <DAV:label> latest </DAV:label> > > revision-selection-rule. > > If a server only has to support a revision-selection-rule in the > default workspace, and does not have to allow modification of the > default workspace's revision-selection-rule, I believe this ensures > that a server needs to do no more work than that required for a > "set-default-revision" method. > > Is this a generally acceptable compromise?