From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT) To: jamsden@us.ibm.com (jamsden) Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org ('Delta V') Message-ID: <2000Feb18.091300.1250.1480486@otismtp.ott.oti.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:17:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Auto version for workspaces Hmm, by your logic then the server is a resource :-) Where would that server default be set? Tim ---------- >From: jamsden >To: Tim Ellison (OTT) >Cc: 'Delta V'; ietf-dav-versioning-request >Subject: Re: Auto version for workspaces >Date: Thursday, February 17, 2000 6:42PM > >Creating a new revision is an operation on a versioned resource, not a >workspace. So auto versioning should be an attribute of a versioned >resource, not a workspace, which is not even versionable. Auto versioning >should be a server default with override on a per versioned resource basis. >This gets you what you want while keeping the state information with the >correct object. > > >|--------+----------------------------------> >| | Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim| >| | Ellison OTT) | >| | Sent by: | >| | ietf-dav-versioning-requ| >| | est@w3.org | >| | | >| | | >| | 02/16/00 05:11 PM | >| | | >|--------+----------------------------------> > >-------------------------------------------------------------------| > | | > | To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org ('Delta V') | > | cc: | > | Subject: Auto version for workspaces | > >-------------------------------------------------------------------| > > >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 > > > > >