Next message: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "RE: draft-ietf-deltav04.5 now available"
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:04:07 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200005210504.BAA09445@tantalum.atria.com>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-deltav04.5 now available
From: Juergen Reuter <reuterj@ira.uka.de>
> Many headlines end with a period where it probably should not occur
> (at least, the "." do not occur consistently).
> 7 Advanced Versioning.. 20
>
> 7.1 Advanced Versioning Terms 20
>
> 8 Advanced Versioning Semantics. 21
That's an artifact of the Word to HTML conversion. It's trying to
write out a series of periods connecting the last word to the page
number, but only making room for 0, 1, or 2 dots. If somebody
can find a way to fix this without messing up the Word to Ascii
conversion, I'd be happy to modify the format. Otherwise, we probably
can just live with it.
Note that the indention is also broken. From a short look at the html
code (arrgh! sgml/html was originally designed to be human-readable!)
I guess your software has some problems with converting the original
document into html. In fact, the resulting html is buggy: in section
2.1, it produces a "<big>...</big>" tag that is visible to the user:
Btw, the diagrams in sections 1.2 and 2.1 do not show properly (there
probably should be a "<pre>...</pre>" tag surrounding the diagrams).
More Word to HTML funnies. I check over the result of the Word to
ASCII conversion before sending them to the ietf (and fix up the
failures by hand), but usually don't do so for intermediate working
drafts.
What about the redirection resources protocol which was mentioned
in early versions of this protocol? It seems to have disappeared.
For example, draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-04.txt mentions it in the
open issues section. I thought I once even read it somewhere in the
introduction, but I can not find it anymore; maybe I was wrong.
If you can think of any reason why it should be mentioned in the
versioning protocol, let me know.
> Does that mean that the associated revision is to be deleted?
> The same questions arise when you apply DELETE or
> MOVE on a versioned resource whose target is a revision.
>
> No, in that case, the DELETE or MOVE is applied to the binding to
> that versioned resource, not to the revision.
But, once again, given a server that does *not* support the bindings
protocol, what happens, when you try to DELETE a versioned resource
whose target is a revision? Delete the revision? Delete the versioned
resource? Return an error?
A DELETE of a versioned resource makes the versioned resource
inaccessible under that URL. This means all revisions and all working
resources of that versioned resource are inaccessible as well. Note
that whether any storage is freed up as a result is completely up to
the implementation (and will depend on whether that versioned resource
is accessible under some other URL, or some other protocol).
I think it is the wording "target of a versioned resource" itself that
was confusing me. Ok, the definition in section 1.2 explicitly says
that the target is controlled with the Target-Header-Selector. Still,
I personally would prefer a term like "target of a request to a
versioned resource" or "request target of a versioned resource".
I'll explictly define this shorthand in the protocol, since others
may find this confusing as well.
Cheers,
Geoff