Re: default workspace vs. set-default method vs. default label

Damon Poole (damon@ede.com)
Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:05:38 -0500


Message-Id: <199903151705.MAA17374@roxie.ede.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.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 <damon@ede.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?