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

RE: Splitting off core: where we stand

From: Ron Jacobs <rjacobs@gforce.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:10:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CC2AF3B5727BD411907F00A0CC63594C0F0B39@exchange.gforcesystems.com>
To: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Cc: "'Eric Sedlar'" <Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com>, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

My response echoes Eric's exactly. I'll weigh in on the "against splitting"
side for all of the "against" reasons you've referenced.

Thanks, Ron

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Sedlar [mailto:Eric.Sedlar@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:20 PM
To: Jim Whitehead; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: Splitting off core: where we stand


  I only voted against a split at the DeltaV breakout meeting in San Diego,
but I'll repeat it here to help your accounting.  A delay in the standards
process for the workspace and baseline options, in particular, would
probably have an impact on the time until any Oracle DeltaV implementation
would be marketed.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Whitehead
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:51 AM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Splitting off core: where we stand
> 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
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 17:05:20 UTC

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