Re: IETF Versioning Meetings
Sankar Virdhagriswaran (sv@hunchuen.crystaliz.com)
Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:39:32 -0500
Message-ID: <013801be6b36$1ad89480$d0acddcf@yokohama.crystaliz.com>
From: "Sankar Virdhagriswaran" <sv@hunchuen.crystaliz.com>
To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>,
Cc: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:39:32 -0500
Subject: Re: IETF Versioning Meetings
>are implicitly selected as well. This doesn't require any additional
>protocol support.
>
Great!
>Since the conflicts report is an XML document, you should be able to extend
>it to handle more specialized forms of conflicts supported by a particular
>server. Does this cover the use cases of interest?
>
From the conflict resolution perspective, this is correct. I have not seen
the format of the XML DTD (or is it just an XML document) for the conflict
report, so I can't say for sure.
However, specification of the 'states' in which a versioned resource can be
at is important for this to work right. In particular, 'state' in which a
versioned resource was at when a method was executed (e.g., checkout) needs
to be tracked at the right level of granularity. Additionally, these states
need to be gotten from the conflict report (as perhaps property) of the
versioned resource.