> I think we need to distinguish between > > a) references to version histories / versions that are correct, > but specific > users may not dereference/GET them (I don't have any problem with > that), and Agreed. > b) references that are dead (because the resource they point to is gone). > > In case b), there's no way a subsequent CHECKIN or CHECKOUT can satisfy > RFC3253's postconditions, so I'd consider this a broken state. There > shouldn't be a protocol-tolerated way to get into this state, right? Agreed. ...and there is no way in HTTP to ensure that a resource is gone, so we are cool, right? Regards, TimReceived on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 16:38:52 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:43 GMT