Next message: Tim Ellison OTT: "Re: Auto version for workspaces"
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256889.0059174A.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 11:11:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Auto version for workspaces
The server default would be set by some admin mechanism not covered by
WebDAV. It would be obtained through OPTIONS like other server
characteristics.
|--------+----------------------->
| | Tim_Ellison@o|
| | ti.com (Tim |
| | Ellison OTT) |
| | |
| | 02/18/2000 |
| | 09:17 AM |
| | |
|--------+----------------------->
>-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS |
| cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org ('Delta V') |
| 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
>
>
>
>
>