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

RE: Last Call for DAV:checked-out-vcr Proposal

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 00:03:56 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10362520F@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: Rick Rupp [mailto:rick.rupp@merant.com]

   The idea proposed by Tim concerning a new CHECKIN option to replace
   what is trying to be done with DAV:checked-out-vcr seems good. This
   allows a client to request the server to do the checkin/update
   operations and not require it to be done.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not require it to be done".

   I am not convinced that
   servers supporting other core versioning features should be
   required in all cases to update the VCR on check in.

A server that supports the core-versioning package is not
required to support the working-resource feature, and therefore
is not affected by this update-the-VCR-on-checkin issue.

   If the DAV:checked-out-vcr property is made part of the
   specification then I would prefer it to be OPTIONAL and not

Optional features are close to useless for an interoperable client
writer.  It's hard enough to write a client that works against the 5
different packages that have been defined, so the only clients likely
to take advantage of "optional" features will be those written against
a specific server, and those clients don't need the feature defined in
the protocol.

   I'm also wondering if a new core versioning package shouldn't be
   described similar to the basic-client-workspace package without the
   update and label features.

I'd be strongly against introducing a new package.  We already have
5 packages defined, and that is 4 too many.  A poor client writer is
already faced with too many server variations (and that's just in
the versioning axis!).

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2001 23:58:19 UTC

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