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

RE: Removing a resource: A compromise that satisfies?

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:33:16 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B1018E2483@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa@xythos.com>, "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Great!

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 12:33 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: Removing a resource: A compromise that satisfies?


That's OK by me, as far as cleaning out versions goes!

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:04 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Removing a resource: A compromise that satisfies?
> 
> 
> How about an alternative approach:
> 
> Add a new postcondition to DELETE that says:
> 
> "If a server does not support the version-history feature,
> then it MAY automatically delete a version resource if that
> version no longer appears in the DAV:version-tree report
> of any version-controlled resource."
> 
> I believe this allows John and Lisa to do what they want,
> without violating the concern of several of us that
> a client should be able to count on a version being
> preserved by a server while it is still being referenced
> by another resource visible on the server.
> 
> I believe this approach is better than adding a body
> to DELETE, because it does not require adding additional
> protocol elements.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 15:28:40 GMT

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