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

RE: Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 2/2/00 (Friday) 12-1pm EST

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:01:23 -0800
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Oops, I was working on an email to you separately about that, but it's
still sitting in my drafts folder.

I was excited about the possibilities of variants, but when Barry
reviewed the draft, he brought me back down to earth.  It's the problem
of being a small company without in-house client development.  Sure, we
could implement variants in our server, but if no client did, what's the
point -- our versioning support would be useless.

You may want to leave it in, because if one of our customers ever asks
for the functionality provided by variants, we can recommend that.
Eazel might someday look at it.  Or if Microsoft or Adobe or another of
the big WebDAV client companies ever implements variants, then great,
we're there.  But until then, we really can't afford to implement
something that doesn't interoperate with anything.

I still agree that the variant stuff is valuable, but *sigh*...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:17 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 2/2/00 (Friday) 12-1pm EST
> I thought you were planning on supporting the variant
> option?  (And if not, why did we spend all that time
> working it out ... :-).
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> p.s.  Seriously, I think the variant
> option is a valuable addition to the protocol, whether
> or not you intend on implementing it in your server (:-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 2:50 PM
> To: Jim Amsden; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 2/2/00 (Friday) 12-1pm EST
> > We have struggled with how to handle core vs. advanced
> > vs. options since the beginning of Delta-V. In fact,
> > there is a recent thread on this subject that suggests
> > splitting them into separate documents. The compromise
> > we came up with was to have core contain the minimal,
> > essential support for versioning semantics that we
> > expected every server vendor would implement. That is,
> > core represents the common functions provided by all
> > versioning repository vendors while the extensions
> > represent the variability. However, we don't expect any
> > server to just implement core because by itself, core
> > isn't that interesting. Even the document management
> > vendors have expressed interest in a number of the
> > extensions. We just couldn't get any agreement on common
> > subsets. This has been the greatest source of
> > controversy, not the semantics of the specific
> > extensions themselves.
> Xythos is planning to implement core and only core, unless and until
> some interoperable DAV clients also implement some of the
> more generally
> useful extensions such as checkin/checkout, baselines, variants or
> labels, or until a customer requires such options.
> "Expressed interest" is a vague statement, you could say that
> Xythos has
> expressed interest in various extensions, however as I've
> stated we may
> not implement any extensions anytime soon.
> Any other document management vendors care to discuss what
> options they
> plan to implement?
> Lisa
Received on Friday, 2 February 2001 18:03:06 UTC

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