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

Re: baselines & namespaces

From: Alison Macmillan <alison.macmillan@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:35:47 +0000
Message-ID: <3C1F4633.94949859@oracle.com>
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
CC: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org


"Clemm, Geoff" wrote:

>    From: Alison Macmillan [mailto:alison.macmillan@oracle.com]
>
>    "Clemm, Geoff" wrote:
>
>    > If a server supports version-controlled collections, and if
>    > a version-controlled collection gave a name to a
>    > version history, and that version history is the root of a
>    > subbaseline, then that subbaseline is restored at that location.
>    > But otherwise, no, the protocol does not require a server to
>    > preserve anything about the relative locations of subbaselines.
>
>    I hadn't understood from the spec that the (collection)
>    version-history should imply a baseline, and so had not seen how
>    the version-controlled-binding could behave as a
>    "baseline-binding".
>
> A collection version history definitely does not imply a baseline.
> But if a server supports both version-controlled collections and
> baselines, then if a baseline B1 selects collection version CV2 (say
> with name "x/y" relative to the root of B1), and if CV2 has a
> version-controlled binding named "z" to the collection version history
> CVH3, and if B1 has a subbaseline B2, and if the root of B2 is a
> version of CVH3, then subbaseline B2 will be located at "x/y/z"
> relative to the root of B1.
>

So, is it right  that the DAV:baseline-collection can _itself_ be a VCR
(for the above example, with DAV:checked-in a version of CVH3)?

Thanks,
Alison.
--
 -------------------------------------------------------------
 The statements and opinions expressed here are my own
 and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation.
 -------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2001 08:36:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:43 GMT