Next message: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com: "Versioning TeleConf ... 2pm-3pm EST"
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10D9E60@SUS-MA1IT01>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:08:16 -0400
Subject: RE: postcondition for PUT
Will do.
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Boris Bokowski/OTT/OTI [mailto:Boris_Bokowski@oti.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 11:37 AM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: postcondition for PUT
> Geoff Clemm:
>
> From: "Boris Bokowski/OTT/OTI" <Boris_Bokowski@oti.com>
>
> If a server chooses to put files under version control
> automatically, what is the effect of a PUT? Does this create a new
> history resource, a new version (implicit CHECKIN...) in that
> history resource, and a version selector at the request URL which
> selects the new version?
>
> Yes, it would just appear as if the server had automatically applied a
> VERSION-CONTROL request following the creation of the new resource.
I think sections 5.4 (PUT), 12.6 (MKCOL) and 12.7 (COPY) should be updated
so that clients know what they can expect. (Under the current spec, an
advanced-versioning server could choose to do an implicit CHECKOUT after
the implicit VERSION-CONTROL.)
It would be even better if the OPTIONS method returned an indication of
whether a server put resources under version control automatically.
-Boris.