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

RE: Removing the DAV:activity and DAV:version-history and DAV:ba seline resource type values

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 17:31:34 +0100
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <80256A63.005ABCDA.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote:
>
> So the part of me is responsible for earning a salary doesn't care,
> but the part of me that wants the world to be a better place cares
> deeply (:-).

Ah, didn't reckon on that schizophrenia thing.

> I suggest that no DAV:resourcetype values are needed for the
> DeltaV protocol extensions,

Agreed.

> but that I am willing to add any
> set of (well-defined! :-) values on which the working group can
> reach consensus.
>
> So from now on, I will only be asking for clarification on
> the semantics of proposed new DAV:resourcetype values, rather
> than repeating why I'm against adding any at all (:-).

Once the "reasoned debate" has concluded it can drift off into the
archives.  Clearly this debate falls far short of RFC2026's description of
a basis for dispute which is "(a) [an individual's] own views have not been
adequately considered by the Working Group, or (b) the Working Group has
made an incorrect technical choice which places the quality and/or
integrity of the Working Group's product(s) in significant jeopardy"

Tim
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 12:32:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:41 GMT