RE: DAV:resourceid vs. DAV:versioned-res

From: Tim Ellison OTT (Tim_Ellison@oti.com)
Date: Fri, Jan 21 2000

  • Next message: Tim Ellison OTT: "RE: DAV:revision-resourcetype"

    From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
    To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
    Message-ID: <2000Jan21.101600.1250.1452105@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
    Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:22:40 -0500
    Subject: RE: DAV:resourceid vs. DAV:versioned-res
    
    
    Agreed.
     ----------
    >From: Geoffrey M. Clemm
    >To: ietf-dav-versioning
    >Subject: DAV:resourceid vs. DAV:versioned-resour
    >Date: Thursday, January 20, 2000 11:18PM
    >
    >I propose that we just use require that a versioned resource
    >have a DAV:resourceid (as defined in the BINDING protocol),
    >rather than introducing a new DAV:versioned-resource-id.
    >
    >I further propose (as suggested by someone earlier) that we
    >require that the DAV:resourceid of a working resource or revision
    >be the DAV:resourceid of its versioned resource.
    >
    >Comments?
    >
    >Cheers,
    >Geoff
    >
    >