RE: Review of 06

From: Clemm, Geoff (gclemm@rational.com)
Date: Tue, Aug 08 2000

Next message: Clemm, Geoff: "RE: Minutes from IETF breakout meeting, 2-Aug-00"

Previous message: Tim Ellison: "Minutes from the Working Group Meeting, 2-Aug-00"
Maybe in reply to: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "Review of 06"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10D9E17@SUS-MA1IT01>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:12:42 -0400 
Subject: RE: Review of 06

After mulling over it some more, I now agree with Jim that
the definition of "fork" should appear in the core terminology
section, even though it is not used until the advanced versioning
section.  I assume nobody else cares much one way or the other (:-),
so I'll just make that change.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:geoffrey.clemm@rational.com]

   From: jamsden@us.ibm.com

   Fork should be in core versioning as it is possible to create
   them there.

We don't support any "fork" properties or methods in core versioning
so there's no need for the term until advanced versioning.

Next message: Clemm, Geoff: "RE: Minutes from IETF breakout meeting, 2-Aug-00"
Previous message: Tim Ellison: "Minutes from the Working Group Meeting, 2-Aug-00"
Maybe in reply to: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "Review of 06"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]