Next message: Eric Sedlar: "Re: "stable" href's"
From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
Message-ID: <2000Jan21.155600.1250.1452878@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:03:56 -0500
Subject: Re: DAV:revision-resourcetype
That's the beauty of an ambiguous question, ...
Given that this is a convenience redundancy, I have no objection.
Tim
----------
>From: Geoffrey M. Clemm
>To: ietf-dav-versioning
>Subject: Re: DAV:revision-resourcetype
>Date: Friday, January 21, 2000 2:12PM
>
> From: Tim Ellison OTT <Tim_Ellison@oti.com>
> > In what instances would you expect DAV:resourcetype to be different to
> > DAV:revision-resourcetype ?
>
> From: "Eric Sedlar" <esedlar@us.oracle.com>
> Only if you allow transmutation of types, e.g. version 1 of this
resource
> was a "quote" and version 2 is a "purchase order", or some such. In
> general, I think allowing transmutation is a bad idea, so we shouldn't
have
> a revision-resourcetype different than resourcetype, ever.
>
>I agree with Eric. My response was different from his because I
>read Tim's question as:
>
>"In what instances would you expect the DAV:resourcetype of a resource
>to be different from the DAV:revision-resourcetype of that resource."
>
>which I'd answer "always", while Eric read Tim's question as:
>
>"In what instances would you expect the DAV:resourcetype of a revision
>to be different from the DAV:revision-resourcetype of its versioned
resource."
>
>which (like Eric) I'd answer "never".
>
>Cheers,
>Geoff
>
>