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

RE: Auto update of VCR when checking an associated working resource

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:38:56 -0700
To: "Tim Ellison" <tim@peir.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HPELJFCBPHIPBEJDHKGKMEAJCJAA.lisa@xythos.com>
So are we back to saying that supporting Working Resource feature requires
also supporting UPDATE?  That's what I'm trying to avoid.  Is there a better
way for these two features to not depend on each other?

Furthermore, it's surprising to me, and perhaps to clients as well, that
working resource checkins and in-place checkins work so differently: one
ends up with the VCR pointing to the latest version at the end, and the
other doesn't (by default).  I would expect the default behaviour of both of
these to be the same.

Perhaps Jim's proposal could instead be worded so that auto-update was the
default, and "do not update" is the exceptional behaviour that the client
must request.

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ellison
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 3:36 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Auto update of VCR when checking an associated working
> resource
>
>
> Lisa wrote:
> > I'm in favour of this.
> >
> > One addendum:  if the server does NOT support the UPDATE
> method, then the
> > client MUST include the DAV:auto-update property in the CHECKIN request.
>
> (The DAV:auto-update property is on the working resource).  I
> don't want to
> make it mandatory since there are cases where creating a version that does
> not update the version-controlled resource is desirable.
> Without UPDATE it would only be 'referenceable'(ahem) by the version URL.
>
> Regards,
> Tim
Received on Friday, 13 July 2001 01:39:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:42 GMT