Next message: by way of : "I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-deltav-versioning-02.txt"
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256877.003B8F81.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:42:43 -0500
Subject: Re: DAV:revision-resourcetype
I think we should leave this to the server implementors. If they want to
advertise a set of revison-storageformats or any other such thing, they are
free to do so. I don't see a great need to have interoperability at this
level of implementation detail as it is unlikely that clients using more
than one server will ever need to reconcile their potentially different
stored data formats.
"Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>@w3.org on 01/27/2000
11:26:39 PM
Sent by: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
cc:
Subject: Re: DAV:revision-resourcetype
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
Could you give it some more meaningful name like revision-storageformat?
DAV:revision-resourcetype is too similar to DAV:resourcetype but is
playing
a much different role.
I'm very mellow about what we call this property.
For that matter, I'm pretty mellow about whether we put in the spec at
all ... all CM servers I know will have one, but heck, we can just
each make up our own names for it (:-).
I will note though that the appropriate storage format is closely
tied (and sometimes identical) to the resourcetype.
Cheers,
Geoff