W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2002


From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:13:50 -0500
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B105E4DA04@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: "Ietf-Dav-Versioning (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
   From: Kirmse, Daniel [mailto:daniel.kirmse@sap.com]

   From: Peter Raymond [mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com]
   >[Daniel said:] 
   >>For COPY I'd expect to got a new VCR at the destination with an
   >>exact copy of properties. This implies that the new created VCR
   >>must share the version-history with the source VCR. Is this
   >>correct? Is this desirable?

   >I think this is desirable and correct but with one caveat... 

One could debate whether it is desireable, but it definitely is not
correct (:-) ... see section 3.14 that Daniel quotes below.

   But 3.14 states

   (DAV:copy-creates-new-resource): If the source of a COPY is a
   version-controlled resource or version, and if there is no resource
   at the destination of the COPY, then the COPY creates a new
   non-version-controlled resource at the destination of the COPY.
   The new resource MAY automatically be put under version control,
   but the resulting version-controlled resource MUST be associated
   with a new version history created for that new version-controlled
   resource, and all postconditions for VERSION-CONTROL apply to the

   so there would be a new version-history for the copy-target. What
   is right here???

The spec (:-).

   I certainly wouldn't have thought that moving a VCR would create a new
   history resource. 

MOVE does not, but COPY does.  This is true in general for MOVE and
COPY, i.e. that MOVE just gives a resource a new name (URL), while
COPY creates a new resource.

Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 21:14:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:48 UTC