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

RE: Actually, you don't need COPY or MOVE, what you really seem to want is CLONE.

From: John Hall <johnhall@evergo.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:14:44 -0700
To: "'Jim Amsden'" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000201c0f8da$f429c130$0400a8c0@xythosjohnhall>
Well, not having workspaces, baselines, merge's, updates, etc. I can't
see any reason to waste server storage on it.  Not that I see much
utility in this property with those features, either.  I'd be happy if
the element were removed and listed as a proposed (later) addition.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Amsden
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:35 AM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Actually, you don't need COPY or MOVE, what you 
> really seem to want is CLONE.
> 
> 
> I guess I agree with John. This sort of information is 
> generally kept in 
> comments or application specific properties. The question we 
> have to ask 
> ourselves is if there is any need to have precursor 
> information available 
> in an interoperable way. I don't know off the top of my head 
> any other 
> system that supports this, but it could be something I just 
> never used.
> 
> I also agree with Geoff in that there are good arguments either way. 
> However I'd lean in the direction of leaving things out if 
> there is any 
> doubt. They can always be added in later when we have more 
> experience and 
> the use cases are more crisp. We don't want to hold up the 
> protocol on 
> such issues either if we can help it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still can't see where it is useful to know about two 
> different version histories, one that you have poor 
> information on (the source of the
> COPY) and an old version history that is no longer relevent 
> to the actual content (since you overlayed it).
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hall
> > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:30 PM
> > To: 'Rick Rupp'; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [ietf-dav-versioning] <none>
> > 
> > 
> > I disagree.
> > 
> > I see no difference between creating a new version from
> > scratch and copying data from somewhere else to create a new 
> > version from scratch. If I open file1 and then do a save-as 
> > on file2, the server doesn't know and precussor isn't set in 
> > any case.  So why is it so important to know that someone 
> > grabbed a copy of file1's current version and copied it to 
> > file2 without editing it first?  If you really want the 
> > version history, use MOVE not COPY.
> > 
> > Do you have a 'for example' use case where that origin
> > information is valuable?  And would it still remain valuable 
> > after a few more edits were done?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rick Rupp
> > > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 5:39 PM
> > > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> > > Subject: [ietf-dav-versioning] <none>
> > > 
> > > 
> > > The precursor-set property seems to be an important concept of a 
> > > versions history. Without it there is no indication that 
> a version 
> > > has a relationship to another version history.
> > > 
> > > I don't think it will be unusual for a client to create a new 
> > > version by copying from a different version history. Will it be
> > > important to know the 
> > > new version came from a different version history? I think 
> > > the answer is 
> > > yes and the precursor-set facilitates this.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 12:14:45 GMT

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