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

Last call on the DAV:precursor-set property

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:32:58 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10350AAD6@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Tim is of course correct ... only the most compelling implementation
issue or use case should cause one to insert a MAY in the protocol.

So unless I hear from a defender of the DAV:precursor-set property,
I will delete it from the next draft of the protocol.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 5:15 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: A non-forking server, precussor revisited.




"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote:
> So how about the following.  Just change the postcondition
> of COPY to say that the COPY "MAY" update the precursor set.
> Is this OK with everyone?

No.  I think we should either make it mandatory or scrap it altogether.
Unless you have at least one 'compelling' use case for each option offered
by "MAY" (i.e. COPY should update the DAV:precursor-set property, and COPY
should not update the DAV:precursor-set property) then we are doing a
disservice to clients by stating that servers can choose.
In this case, unless someone can defend the property I suggest we remove
it.

Tim
Received on Monday, 18 June 2001 10:35:36 GMT

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