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

Re: auto-version

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:14:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200101112314.SAA10111@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: "Eric Sedlar" <Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com>

   I object.  You are implicitly changing the datatype of
   a property from boolean to QName if you change it from allowing
   "true" to "DAV:true".  Are you planning on allowing other
   values in those fields (e.g. "IBM:it-depends")

Yes the proposal is to change the datatype from boolean to an
extensible type (but I think we'd call the new value
"DAV:checkout-when-locked" as opposed to "IBM:it-depends" :-).

So do you object to replacing "true" with </DAV:true> (which you are
supposed to have forgotten about, because it was so obviously wrong
and I'm embarassed I ever brought it up :-), or object to allowing
multiple values in DAV:auto-version (which I think is probably OK)?

Cheers,
Geoff

   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
   > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
   > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:57 AM
   > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
   > Subject: RE: auto-version
   >
   >
   > Good points.  I'll fix that up.
   >
   > While I'm in there, Jim Amsden asked if we could add a
   > value to DAV:auto-version that says "only auto version
   > while locked" (i.e. this would say to auto-checkout if
   > the checked-in vcr is write-locked, but just fail the
   > update if it is not write-locked).
   >
   > I think this is a decision more likely to made by the
   > server (i.e. does it have an efficient delta scheme for
   > that resource type), but I'd be happy to add this if
   > folks think it's a good idea.  Any preference?
   >
   > This brings to mind another point ... currently we have
   > a couple of properties that take string values of "true"
   > and "false".  It occurs to me that it would be cleaner to
   > have elements called "DAV:true" and "DAV:false".  Any
   > objections to this change?
   >
   > Cheers,
   > Geoff
   >
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com]
   > Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 9:21 AM
   > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
   > Subject: DAV:auto-version
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > From versioning-11
   >
   > 2.2.5 DAV:auto-version
   >
   > When the DAV:auto-version property of a checked-out version-controlled
   > resource is set, a modification request (such as PUT/PROPPATCH) is
   > automatically preceded by a checkout operation.
   >
   > (1) Oops, I think that should be referring to a checked-in VCR.
   >
   > (2) If I was going to be pedantic I would say that the property should be
   > set, and its value should be 'true' .
   >
   > (3) We seem to have lost the description of 'doing no harm' during
   > modification failures (words to te effect that if the PUT fails the server
   > should be left as though non of the CHECKOUT-PUT-CHECKIN sequence
   > occurred).
   >
   >
   > Regards,
   >
   > Tim Ellison
   > Java Technology Centre, MP146
   > IBM UK Laboratory, Hursley Park, Winchester, UK.
   > tel: +44 (0)1962 819872  internal: 249872  MOBx: 270452
   >
   >
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2001 18:15:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:39 GMT