Re: Version issues
Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:04:27 -0800
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: Versioning <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:04:27 -0800
Message-ID: <004b01be7ca4$c1304740$d115c380@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: Version issues
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 1999 7:15 PM
To: Bradley.Sergeant@merant.com
Cc: BCragun.ORM2-1.OREM2@gw.novell.com; jamsden@us.ibm.com;
ckaler@exchange.microsoft.com; dgd@cs.bu.edu; ejw@ics.uci.edu
Subject: Re: Version issues
I still vote for two levels. I believe there is a minimal level that we
can get people to agree on. I also believe there is a maximal level that
we can get people to agree on. Finding an intermediate level that is
right for more than a couple of vendors seems unlikely to me, and I'd hate
to spend too much time trying to find one.
In particular, I find it much more likely that if we carefully design the
maximal features to be orthogonal, then vendors can pick the subset of
those features that get them to where they need to be, while still
maintaining
a reasonable degree of interoperability based on the shared minimal feature
set.
Another way of phrasing it is that I see the definition of these
intermediate
levels to be a prime candidate for the more informal process that JimA
has described for standard properties.
Cheers,
Geoff
From: Bradley.Sergeant@merant.com
I would support a three level model such as Chris is suggesting. From
my experiance it matches a rough segmentation of the market: Low,
Medium, High. I can understand resistance to N levels, especially if
they are perceived as arbitrary. My opinion is that three levels are
just about right to capture the various market needs.
On the other hand, the benefits of going to a three level model
diminish if it does not discourage mixed-level implementations.
--Sarge