I agree with Julian that this is what should happen. This is what section 1.7 is intended to make clear (but apparently wasn't fully successful :-). Cheers, Geoff Julian wrote on 07/12/2006 06:07:23 AM: > > Werner Donné schrieb: > > Hi, > > > > Say we want to copy a collection to an existing version controlled > > resource in a repository that puts everything under version control > > automatically. The version history of the destination should be > > kept and the resource should be updated. > > > > What should happen if the source and destination collection have > > internal members with the same name? Should the internal members > > in the destination collection also be updated or should the > > destination collection get new version controlled resources for > > those? > > I think they should be updated, although RFC3253 isn't very clear on > that. Check > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#rfc.section.1.7> and > <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15. > html#rfc.section.9.8.4>. > > Best regards, Julian >Received on Wednesday, 12 July 2006 10:46:34 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:44 GMT