"Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote: > A third alternative was suggested at the recent IETF meeting > by Roy Fielding, namely, that the "update" behavior was actually > the behavior intended for COPY with Overwrite:T, so the > right thing to do is to make this clarification in the > versioning protocol, rather than introducing a new "update" value > for Overwrite or a new Update header. Should this be in the versioning protocol, or in an update to 2518? (Or is it intended that the versioning RFC update 2518?) -- /==============================================================\ |John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.| |Chief Scientist |=============================================| |eCal Corp. |Belief is not relevant to truth. | |francis@ecal.com| | \==============================================================/Received on Thursday, 21 December 2000 12:13:39 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:39 GMT