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

RE: Core versioning issues and nits

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:30:04 -0800
To: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> > 13) Root versions
> >
> > In 2.9, the root version of a version history "must
> > not be deleted".  Why is that?  This seems like an
> > implementation issue, not a protocol/interoperability
> > issue.  Please leave this issue up to the implementation
> > to decide whether or not to allow deletion of old versions,
> > and how to deal with any subsequent rearrangements that
> > might be necessary.
> I queried this one too
> The principal author writes:
> "Then you lose a key semantic of a version tree, namely it is
> connected
> and every version is reachable from the DAV:root-version.  I don't see
> that the benefit of allowing deletion of the root version
> outweighs the
> benefit of have the version tree be connected."

Then make the requirement that the version tree be connected.  It's
quite possible for implementations to meet the requirement that the
version tree be connected, and provide this valuable functionality for

On the other hand, if you do not require that the version tree be
connected, then it's quite possible for implementations to end up with
an unconnected version tree even without deleting the root version.

I think the point here is to make the requirement state what the client
needs, rather than what you think is needed in order to get what the
client needs.

Received on Friday, 2 February 2001 15:31:01 UTC

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