Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: working resource DAV:merge-state property?"
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <852568C1.0072CA29.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:53:47 -0400
Subject: Re: working resource DAV:merge-state property?
- something: to get interoperability, will we be forced to say what
gets done for each resource type? I don't think we want to get into
this, but its the kind of issue that can come up.
I agree, but I think it is clear that this should be completely up to
the server since different servers will have different ideas about
what an appropriate value is.
<jra>
But I don't think its up to the server. The problem is that this is
resource type dependent. There's no way to get interoperability without
tying resource types to the protocol. I guess we could consider what it
would mean to ignore the interoperability issue here and let servers
advertise what they do. But a client merging from server to server wouldn't
know what to expect. This is the stuff that makes me nervous.
</jra>
All I have in mind here is that automatic merge
algorithms usually distinguish a "trivial merge" that might be OK
as it is, and a "conflict" which is known to require human intervention.
A server used DAV:done and DAV:intermediate to distinguish those two
cases. DAV:initial means that the server has no clue about how to
merge a resource of that type.
<jra>
This makes a lot of sense. How about more descriptive terms like
DAV:merge-completed, DAV:merge-partially-completed, and
DAV:no-server-conflict-resolution? I know they're long, but we need to be
clear about their meaning.
</jra>