Next message: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "Branching, repositories, and activities"
Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC03093BFE@chef.lex.rational.com>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:39:02 -0400
Subject: RE: Revision-set property: unordered?
That is correct, the DAV:revision-set property of a history
resource is unordered. I agree that the benefit of such an ordering
would be minimal, and so it is not worth requiring a server
to maintain such an ordering.
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Whitehead [mailto:ejw@ics.uci.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 1:22 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Revision-set property: unordered?
From reading the -05 draft, the revision-set property (found on history,
baseline, and activity resource) contains an *unordered* list of revision
URLs. Would it be fair to say that a client cannot make any assumptions
about the ordering of revision URLs in the revision-set property? An
alternative might be to order them according to some version/branch
numbering scheme, but this seems like a bit of work for not much benefit.
- Jim