Re: Version issues
Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:05:11 -0800
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: Versioning <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 17:05:11 -0800
Message-ID: <004e01be7ca4$db71c660$d115c380@ics.uci.edu>
Subject: Re: Version issues
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Kaler (Exchange) [mailto:ckaler@exchange.microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 1999 9:50 AM
To: 'Geoffrey M. Clemm'; Bradley.Sergeant@merant.com
Cc: BCragun.ORM2-1.OREM2@gw.novell.com; jamsden@us.ibm.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.
[CK] I'm not wild about > 2 levels, but this approach will result in
limited level 2 support.
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.
[CK] I believe that if we do this, then a "de facto" level 1.5 will
emerge. Better that we define it up front?
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.
[CK] I believe we will do a disservice to versioning and will result
in non-interoperable servers. Clients will have to use OPTIONS
to determine if the server supports there level 1+ features and
in the end, clients will become too complex (because of the
degrees of freedom) or interoperable.