W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: workspaces

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:57:17 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <8025699E.0036B223.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


>    From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
>    If we may it clear in the protocol that multiple
>    membership is acceptable, but that multiple ownership
>    is not, does that satisfy your requirements?
>
>    Tim: Am I correct in assuming that this would be OK with you?

Separating the workspace 'ownership' from the workspace 'membership' would
resolve this issue.  It certainly has the potential to mess up some
workspace optimizations.  Would you allow version selectors to change
workspace ownership?

>   From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com
>
>   So when I have two workspaces A and B both with bindings
>   to a resource C, in which workspace is C?
>
> I'd just leave that up to the server.  I'd suggest the following
> constraint: "the DAV:workspace of a resource MUST be the same as
> the DAV:workspace of one of its parents, unless the resource
> itself is a workspace, in which case the DAV:workspace MUST
> identify the resource itself."

Conceptually, why would you add this constraint if ownership and membership
are orthogonal concepts?

So a reserved 'yes', provided the constraint was made (for efficient
implementation reasons), and clients cannot change a resource's workspace
ownership.

Tim
Received on Tuesday, 21 November 2000 05:14:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:39 GMT