W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: request for un-version-control feature

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:32:27 +0100
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCIEMPGGAA.julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>

> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 7:38 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: RE: request for un-version-control feature
> Could you motivate the need to unversion-control a resource
> but not delete it?  In particular, should a server that automatically

I don't see why this needs to be coupled. I do understand that there are
cases where servers do not support the concept of un-vcr-ing a resource, but
we have provably two independant implementations that both want/need to
support this feature and are looking for a interoperable way to do it

> puts all resources under version control fail such a request,
> or just ignore it?

I think in this case it's best to just return 405 (not allowed), just as a
RFC3253-conforming server would do it anyway.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 17:32:38 UTC

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