RE: A non-forking server, precussor revisited.

• From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
• Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 09:53:30 +0100
• To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
• Message-ID: <80256A6C.003746CA.00@d06mta06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>

"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote:

> A more general question:  I personally am not attached
> to the "precursor" property.  Does anyone want to argue
> for keeping it in the spec?  If not, I propose we get
> rid of it, since it seems to be a source of confusion.

It can go as far as I am concerned -- as I recall JimA. was keen on this
distinction.

Tim

Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 06:05:51 UTC