W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 1998

RE: Versioning implications for Referencing

From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:22:10 -0500
Message-ID: <201BB34B3A73D1118C1F00805F1582E8B76CD4@x-wb-0128-nt8.wrc.xerox.com>
To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
OK, I'll add it to the draft I'm preparing this week and we can have some
discussions of interactions between versioning and referencing / collections
at Orlando.

--Judy

Judith A. Slein
CR&T/ADSTC
jslein@crt.xerox.com
8*222-5169


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:09 PM
> To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Versioning implications for Referencing
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the choice of a special request header.
> 
> I believe it is likely that the "PIN" method will be replaced with a
> property update, so the request header that would make GETPROP and
> PUTPROP refer to the reference itself rather than the reference target
> is a preferable (in addition to being more general) solution than any
> special handling of a "PIN" method.
> 
> Cheers,
> Geoff
> 
>    From: "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
>    Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:28:11 -0500 
> 
>    My preference would be for the latter:  by default,
>    any method on a direct reference would be passed through, 
>    but some header on the request would make the method affect 
>    the reference itself.  I think we would still say that DELETE, 
>    MOVE, and COPY always affect the reference, never its target.
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 1998 09:20:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:48 GMT