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

Splitting off core: where we stand

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:50:35 -0800
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMIAELPCIAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Back on December 1, 2000, I opined that splitting off core versioning from
the options seemed like a good idea, giving reasons both for and against the
split [1].

At the time, Greg Stein [2] and Juergen Reuter both favored a split, though
Juergen suggested that the split criteria should be to include all
versioning features in one document, and configuration management features
in another [3]. Geoff Clemm stated that he would be willing to make such a
split, but indicated that he was concerned that this might delay core [4].

On February 2, 2001, the issue resurfaced, with Larry Masinter favoring
splitting off core, adding a new rationale [5]:

   "Everything outside of core versioning is much less
   likely to progress along standards track at the same
   rate as core versioning (more time to get independent
   interoperable implementations of every feature); by
   linking "core versioning" with "non-core" in the
   initial spec, you're setting yourself up for having
   to split the documents later. Much of non-core is
   controversial."

On this same date, Mark Hale began a thread titled, "Complexity and Core
Considerations", where he polls working group members on whether they think
the specification should be split along core/non-core lines [6]. I replied,
stating that I felt the specification should be split [7], to which Chris
Kaler [8] and Lisa Dusseault [9] agreed. Geoff Clemm [10], Tim Ellison
[11],and James Hunt [12] all disagreed, and want the protocol specification
unsplit.

So, at present we have six in favor of a split, three against. Not entirely
rough consensus, but it certainly shows a leaning in one direction.

- Jim

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2000OctDec/0209.html
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2000OctDec/0213.html
[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2000OctDec/0224.html
[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2000OctDec/0223.html
[5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0244.html
[6]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0266.html
[7]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0270.html
[8]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0273.html
[9]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0339.html
[10]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0322.html
[11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0320.html
[12]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0350.html
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 14:51:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:40 GMT