Next message: Tim Ellison OTT: "Re: Members of a collection"
From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
To: gclemm@rational.com (Clemm, Geoff), ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
Message-ID: <2000Feb17.101440.1250.1478937@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 10:15:45 -0500
Subject: RE: Auto version for workspaces
I agree with all you wrote below. I claim the important case is that
versioning unaware clients can use the default workspace having auto-version
set true (by a versioning friend), so that their PUTs cause auto-versioning
on all (PUT-able) resources.
Tim
----------
>From: Clemm, Geoff
>To: ietf-dav-versioning
>Subject: RE: Auto version for workspaces
>Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 11:02PM
>
>I'm not averse to adding a DAV:auto-version field to a
>workspace resource, but just to make sure we're on the
>same page, this doesn't give a versioning-unaware client
>any more power (if it can set DAV:auto-version on the
>default workspace, it can set it on a versioned resource).
>Also (as currently defined), the DAV:auto-version property
>only has effect on versioning-unaware clients (i.e. ones
>that do not know to use Workspace or Version-Selector
>headers), so this property only has an effect when the
>specified workspace is the default workspace for accessing
>the versioned resource, and when no Workspace or Version-Selector
>header is specified in the request.
>
>So what this really provides is a way for a versioning aware
>client to effectively set DAV:auto-version for a whole set of
>versioned resources.
>
>Tim: Is this still what you wanted?
>
>Cheers,
>Geoff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com [mailto:Tim_Ellison@oti.com]
>>
>> I think it would be a fine thing if workspaces had an auto
>> version property
>> (along the lines of the resource property) that indicated
>> that all resources
>> PUT through that workspace were auto-versioned. This would
>> allow down-level
>> clients to interact on a level playing field, rather than
>> relying on their
>> versioning chums to set the flag on a per resource basis.
>>
>> If I were Geoff, I'd say that I'll add it to the spec unless anyone
>> complains :-)
>>
>> Tim
>>
>
>