Next message: Clemm, Geoff: "RE: revision versus version"
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256897.00735127.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:58:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Existing methods
Ths sounds reasonable Tim.
|--------+---------------------------------->
| | Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim|
| | Ellison OTT) |
| | Sent by: |
| | ietf-dav-versioning-requ|
| | est@w3.org |
| | |
| | |
| | 03/03/2000 02:51 PM |
| | |
|--------+---------------------------------->
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org ('Delta V') |
| cc: |
| Subject: Existing methods |
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
The section on the effect of existing methods seems to be shorter than it
used to be. I think that we need to explain in detail what happens in the
face of these commands on versioned resources.
Along those lines.
Do we agree that COPYing a versioned collection copies deep versioned
resources such that there is a new initial revision in each which was the
selected revision of the source. Furthermore, baselines of the copied
collections would be invalid, so they should not be taken in the COPY.
Maybe somebody more familiar with the bindings protocol can tell me what
happens with copying in the face of binds.
Tim