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

RE: Legal operations on members of a Baseline Collection...

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:54:10 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8AC0D@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Yes, we normally prefer to define constraints in the form of preconditions,
but in this case, the single statement "must never change" in the property
definition was so much simpler that repeating it in each "mutating" method.
But I agree that this normative aspect of the property
definition should be highlighted.  I suggest we change the "has" to a
"MUST have" in the definition to make this point (a change that fits the
"no-repagination" goal :-).


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Raymond [mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 11:16 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: Legal operations on members of a Baseline Collection...

OK...I guess that section does make it clear. 
But, how much of the normative text should be captured in pre and post 
conditions? Without any pre or post condition to enforce the paragraph 
that you quoted do vendors have to obey that paragraph? 
Would I am getting at is that other areas where we are enforcing something 
we explicitly enforce it using pre or post conditions.  But not this one. 
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 12:55:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:47 UTC