Message-ID: <392501AF.884C5308@marconicomms.com> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:56:15 +0200 From: Edgar Schwarz <Edgar.Schwarz@marconicomms.com> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Subject: Re: draft-ietf-deltav04.5 now available "Geoffrey M. Clemm" wrote: > > From: "Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com> > > Do we really need a method for UNCHECKOUT? > How about a check-in policy of <DAV:uncheckout/> > > I made that change in one of the earlier drafts, but as I recall, Jim > Amsden strenuously objected. > > I personally would be more than happy to make it be a > checkin policy, since it is no more strange than "keep-checked-out" > or "overwrite". It sounds logical to have a UNCHECKOUT to abort the actions of a checkout. OTOH we shouldn't inflate the number of our methods. I also would be content if there would be something like: CHECKOUT policy abort (without caring about XML syntax) But this shouldn't be a checkin-policy. ^^^^^^^ :-) Cheers, Edgar -- Edgar.Schwarz@marconicomms.com, Postf. 1920,D-71509 Backnang,07191/133382 Marconi Communications, Access Networks Development, Software Engineering Privat kann jeder soviel C programmieren oder Videos ansehen wie er mag. Niklaus Wirth. Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler A.Einstein