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

RE: Issues, Issues, ???

From: Eric Sedlar <Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:54:03 -0800
To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBLFOFMCKOOMBDHDBKMEMOCAAA.Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com>
1.  prefer yes
2.  yes--there are a lot of opportunities for a big win with this, and
few downsides

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M.
> Clemm
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 12:51 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Issues, Issues, ???
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, I still have some stuff to write up for the revised
> protocol, but the only thing left on my "unresolved issue" list is:
> 
> (1) Should version history URL's be in core (i.e. be required)?
> 
> (2) Should version URL's be stable (i.e. cannot later refer to 
> something else)?
> 
> Any other unresolved issues that I've missed?
> 
> Just to get a sense of where the group is on these questions, please
> everyone mail post one of the following 5 choices on these two issues:
> 
> Yes.
> Prefer yes (but can live with no).
> Don't care.
> Prefer no (but can live with yes).
> No.
> 
> Personally, I "prefer yes" to both issues.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2000 12:56:48 GMT

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