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: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:17:55 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200101131417.JAA12523@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
   From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>

   draft 11.2, section 2.2.5: the "false" notion was lost. There is no longer a
   way to disable auto-versioning.

   [ or if there is, then it is supremely unclear ]

The "false" value of the DAV:auto-version was never used.  The semantics
was "if DAV:auto-version is true then ...".  So "false" and "not set"
were a redundant way of saying the same thing.  Now we no longer have
that redundancy.

   From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>

   Oh... and the description for the locked/unlocked stuff seems to imply
   mutual exclusion. If DAV:when-unlocked is set, does that mean that I need to
   UNLOCK the resource before doing the (auto-versioned) PUT?

Ooops!  That was a mistake.  I intended the value of DAV:auto-version
to be DAV:when-locked *and/or* DAV:when-unlocked.  So you have four
possible values:

nothing (no auto-versioning)
DAV:when-locked (auto-checkout when locked)
DAV:when-unlocked (new version when unlocked)
DAV:when-locked, DAV:when-unlocked (both)

Thanks for catching that error!  I'll fix it.

   I think the values would be:

   - disabled                         (DAV:not-allowed)
   - enabled, no restriction          (DAV:allowed)
   - enabled, must be locked first    (DAV:must-be-locked)

We actually have folks that want only "DAV:when-unlocked", i.e. they
don't want to support the "checkin on unlock" semantics, but do want
to support the unlocked "create new version" semantics.

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Saturday, 13 January 2001 09:18:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:40 GMT