Next message: Clemm, Geoff: "Simplifying client access to advanced versioning"
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000 08:17:27 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200004151217.IAA16993@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: DAV:revisions property for a workspace resource
From: "Jim Doubek" <jdoubek@macromedia.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:00:54 -0700
<jimd>
I agree that you need binding for versionable collections. The point of my
comment is that you don't seem to _really_ need it for anything else.
Therefore, it seems like the binding extensions should only be required by
the Advanced Versioning features (level 2?) rather than by the base spec.
Excellent point. I will make that change.
While it sounds sort of abstruse whether the base deltaV spec requires
binding, my concern is more on the implementation side. I expect that the
majority of CMS's used for the first generation of deltaV systems won't
support sym-linking or aliasing within the repository. If so, requiring the
binding extension semantics might be a problem. I'm trying to assure myself
that one can support base-level deltaV in a hierarchically structured cms
at reasonable effort, and without cheating on the compliance levels for
deltaV or other WebDAV extensions.
On the other hand, tying Advanced Versioning options like Versioned
Collections to the Binding extension seems perfectly reasonable.
Also note that a server that implements BIND does not have to implement
it for *all* collections supported by that server. So for example, it would
be compliant for an advanced versioning server to *only* support BIND on
working collections, and not support it in any other type of collection.
Cheers,
Geoff