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

what to implement? (was: Re: Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 2/2/00 (Friday) 12-1pm EST)

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:34:45 -0800
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010205003445.Q26044@lyra.org>
Subversion will implement most of the options, too (although with some heavy
restrictions in the first release). We won't be doing Variants, Update. If
we ever do in-place checkout and workspaces, it will be a long ways off.

And SVN is both a client and server :-)


On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 03:03:31PM -0800, Eric Sedlar wrote:
> 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.
> --Eric
> -----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?
> Lisa

Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 04:36:49 UTC

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