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

Re: Splitting the document?

From: Juergen Reuter <reuterj@ira.uka.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:02:11 +0100
To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
cc: reuterj@ira.uka.de, jjh@ira.uka.de, ietf-dav-versioning <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <"iraun1.ira.0091801:001204.115942"@ira.uka.de>
> > I am not very happy with the current structure of the document which
> > divides all features into core WebDAV versioning and optional WebDAV
> > versioning.  Currently, the core part is getting smaller and smaller,
> > while the optional part continuously grows.  The problem I see is that
> > server implementors will either implement the core part only, or, in
> > practice, they will have to implement also the full optional part
>
> This is an excellent segue into an issue I wanted to bring up.  The
> packaging of the protocol specification into one or more documents has
> been considered several times by the design team.  

Actually, my point was to introduce just a new level or layer within the
protocol rather than splitting it into separate RFCs.  But, of course, I
have no objections against it, if splitting the document helps improving
the structure of the protocol.

However, if you want to split the document, I would suggest splitting it
in a slightly different way:

* Versioning protocol:

  everything that deals with versioning of individual (unrelated) files

  Level 1: mandatory features (what is currently called core versioning)
  Level 2: optional features (optional versioning reports, mutable
           versions, labels, MERGE for individual files and collections)

* Configuration management protocol:

  everything that deals with versioning of sets of associated (related)
  files

  Basically, everything that is left should go here (including baselines,
  activities, working spaces, MERGE for baselines and activities, etc.).

And those features that have nothing at all to do with versioning (e.g.
new WebDAV properties, REPORT method framework, property report) should
be moved to (a revised edition of) WebDAV.

Bye,
     Juergen
Received on Monday, 4 December 2000 07:00:03 GMT

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