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

RE: VERSION-CONTROL status reporting

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:44:23 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B101FC0349@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Yes, I've gone and fixed that title.

Note though that the title is always of the form "must do or not do X",
i.e. what the postcondition gets you, and not "what went wrong".
(Sort of a glass half full vs. half empty issue :-).  So a standard
error message would be "Could not ensure xxx".  And
"Could not ensure property-invariant-violated" probably isn't
what we want (:-).


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@cse.ucsc.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 2:05 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: VERSION-CONTROL status reporting

> And then lists as a Postcondition:
> > (DAV:already-under-version-control): If the request-URL identified
> > a resource already under version control at the time of the request,
> > the VERSION-CONTROL request MUST NOT change the DAV:checked-in or
> > DAV:checked-out property of that version-controlled resource.

Hmm, I think I was thrown off by the title of this precondition.  It seems
that the purpose of the postcondition is to flag when the property invariant
(DAV:checked-in' == DAV:checked-in) ^ (DAV:checked-out' == DAV:checked-out)
cannot be maintained, and so the name of the postcondition really should be
something like "DAV:property-invariant-violated".

- Jim
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 07:36:13 UTC

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