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: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 00:30:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200102030530.AAA16982@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

Rational intends on implementing most of the DeltaV options,
except for working resources and variants.  We will probably
implement those options as well if there is sufficient client demand
for them.


   From: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
   Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:03:31 -0800

   Oracle plans on implementing most of the DeltaV options,
   with the notable exception of Variants.  

   In addition to end-user clients, we may also be using DeltaV
   internally to communicate between middle tier and data servers.


   -----Original Message-----
   From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
   [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
   Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 11:50 AM
   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?

Received on Saturday, 3 February 2001 00:31:29 UTC

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