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

RE: Confusion: Removing a resource from version control

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:19:23 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1018E2469@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: DeltaV <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
   From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]

   > the temporary location back to the original URL.  Note that the
   > versions already created for the version-controlled resource will
   > continue to exist at their server-defined locations."

   This is clearer, but still problematic.  You've disguised a normative
   requirement as a clarification.

Normative statements are marked with capitalized words (such as MUST),
so this is not a normative statement.  

   Without this "Note" on the end, my
   implementation would have done away with (deleted, gone, byebye) all the
   versions that are no longer associated with a version-controlled

Your implementation is allowed to delete anything it wants (but you
may well encounter clients that are disappointed by this behavior).

   If it is a requirement that the versions already created MUST stay
   around, even when the version-controlled resource is replaced by a
   non-version-controlled resource, then this must be a MUST.

   I'd prefer to say that the versions that are no longer associated
   with a VCR MAY be gone.

I'm happy to either delete this non-normative note, or to replace
the "will continue to exist" with a "may continue to exist".
Does anyone else care one way or the other?

Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2001 17:14:04 UTC

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