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

Re: DAV:version-controlled-binding-set

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:38:34 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200101182238.RAA24475@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

OK, Greg makes a good point that it is more convenient to do a DELETE
than to have to lock some property value and update it.

So I'll switch a working collection back to have history resources
as members (which is probably better anyway, since it makes a
working collection act much more like a checked-out version-controlled
collection), but keep the DAV:version-controlled-binding-set for
the collection version.  I'll try to get this updated draft posted
to the web site sometime late tonight.


   From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>

   On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:22:47PM -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
   > Greg: This means that you would edit the
   > DAV:version-controlled-binding-set of a working collection to move
   > existing version-controlled-members into and out of that working
   > collection.  I assume that is fine with you?  You would
   > still add non-version-controlled members to that working collection
   > if you wanted to create new version controlled resources.

   Hmm... I'm not too sure on this one. I don't do anything with collection
   versions themselves, but only with working collections. The operations there

   *) DELETE /working/collection/member
   *) MKCOL /working/collection/newcoll
   *) PUT /working/collection/newmember
   *) COPY /some/thing -> /working/collection/newmember

   The COPY does the whole DAV:precursor-set thing.

   I never actually "move" something into a working collection, thus editing
   the binding doesn't apply to me.

   But! I get a sneaky feeling that the DELETE might not work properly. If the
   working collection had no members, then I'm guessing that I'd get a 404 on
   the delete. I'd be rather upset if I needed to PROPFIND/PROPPATCH to do a
   DELETE operation. (so consider that an objection if I'm correct in my


   Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Thursday, 18 January 2001 17:39:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC