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

RE: 14.4_CLARIFY_VH_DELETE_2, was: BIND vs. non-movable resources in RFC3253

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:02:48 +0100
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, "DeltaV \(E-mail\)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCIEICFMAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 9:40 PM
> To: DeltaV (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: 14.4_CLARIFY_VH_DELETE_2, was: BIND vs. non-movable resources
> in RFC3253
> ...
>    DeltaV has the concept of stable bindings, but if there's no
>    interoperable way to discover them, the whole concept is
>    *completely* useless. So if we wan't agree that live properties
>    such as "DAV:checked-in" *always* identify the stable binding, it
>    makes no sense whatsoever to keep this concept. So we *really* need
>    to write that down. Does anybody have a problem with this?
> That's fine with me.  I'm guessing most folks are not especially
> concerned because they are not planning on implementing multiple
> bindings to either version histories or versions (but for the same
> reason, would have no problem if this is made explicit).

How can you not implement multiple bindings, if they appear as port of
working collections?

Anyway, I think this should be marked as resolved (the spec should state
that all version and VHR URIs that are reported in live properties must be
the stable URIs).

I'll answer the "other" issue in a separate mail (which will take time).


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 05:03:02 UTC

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