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

Re: Splitting off core: where we stand

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:01:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200102081701.MAA27199@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: Juergen Reuter <reuter@ira.uka.de>

   > Greg and Juergen expressed their desire to split the document before
   > we cleanly separated out the core and options sections.  So I'd
   > be interested in hearing whether they still believe it should be
   > split, especially since one of the prime motivations for doing the
   > split is to defer the submission of the options to the IESG.

   As I already stated on Dec 4th, my point was not to split the document,
   but to refine the structure of the whole document.  The orthogonality of
   options, as claimed in the introduction, makes the protocol much more
   understandable, provided that the claim really holds true.

   But 7.4 says:

     If a server supports the workspace option, it MUST also support the
     checkout option and the version-history option.

   So, options are not completely orthogonal.  I think there was at least
   one other such constraint somewhere in the protocol, if I remember right.
   Hence it might be worth to present these dependencies at some central
   place, possibly as a figure, so that the structure really gets clear.

Good point.  I will add this as text to the introductory paragraph
that discusses the orthogonality of the options, and will try some
ASCII art as well.  As Juergen says, this would provide a very nice
roadmap to the document, emphasizing what is core and what
dependencies there are (the other dependency is that "versioning"
depends on "report").

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 12:02:45 GMT

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