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

Re: Issues, Issues, ???

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:55:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200012192255.RAA04351@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>

   On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 03:50:36PM -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
   > 
   > (1) Should version history URL's be in core (i.e. be required)?

   Prefer no.

   I don't have the mindset for a "core" server, so I'm not sure why this would
   be needed.
   [ as Boris pokes fun :-) ... yes, I need it for a REPORT, but that is it. ]

Well, actually, anyone that implements versioned collections will
end up providing version history URL's because each member of a
collection version is a version history.

So if /repo/ver/73 is a collection version with three members named
a, b, and c, then /repo/ver/73/a, /repo/ver/73/b, and /repo/ver/73/c
are all version history URL's.

With this in mind, do you want to reconsider your "prefer no"?
(I.E. why would you prefer we not require something you are planning
on doing :-).

   > (2) Should version URL's be stable (i.e. cannot later refer to something else)?

   Yes.

   > Any other unresolved issues that I've missed?

   Do you have activity checkin? And the working collection stuff? (although, I
   believe those are resolved now)

Yes, those are on the "resolved, but need to write-up" category.

(Of course, if I mess up the write-up, they may generate an issue :-).

(And also note that working collection members will be initialized
to be version history resources, just to bang that drum one more time :-).

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 19 December 2000 17:56:02 GMT

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