W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Re (2): Deleting versions

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 16:23:29 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1032D9535@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
   From: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de [mailto:Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de]

   > > By having (DAV:must-be-root-version) as a postcondition, you're
   > > preventing an implementation from deleting the last remaining
   > > version from a version history.  I assume this is your intent?
   > > Like so many other things, it must be inferred rather than
   > > finding it stated in the text.  *sigh*

   > The entire postcondition statement is:
   >      (DAV:must-be-root-version): If the root version of a version
   >      history is deleted, there MUST be another version that is
   >      the new root version, i.e. that is the ancestor of all other
   >      versions in the version history.
   > I think it is easily implied that you cannot therefore delete
   > *all* versions of a version history and satisfy this
   > postcondition; but I have no objection to adding to this
   > statement if you really think it needs it.

   I agree that it's rather clear that you can't delete the last
   version.  OTOH I find the name a little bit misleading. Perhaps
   because I'm not a native speaker.  I would prefer
   must-be-a-root-version or perhaps better must-exist-root-version.

How about "DAV:version-history-has-root" ?

Received on Saturday, 2 June 2001 16:24:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:47 UTC