- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:35:07 +0100
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I agree with all of Geoff's points, except for the current position on the baselines and their namespace info. One the one hand, there is agreement that a baseline needs to capture namespace info. > This needs to be changed to say: > "the state of a baseline is limited to be a set > of versions and their relative names in the collection". On the other hand, revealing this namespace information is claimed to be an unreasonable burden. >> Approach (B) feels more general, and allows baselines >> to be offered by a server that does not offer versioned >> collections (e.g., something like CVS). Moreover, the >> additional information captured in the baseline should >> not represent a significant burden for servers planning >> to offer both baseline and versioned collections. > This information could be expensive to compute for certain > implementations. I believe this places an unreasonable > burden on baseline implementors. They should just be > required to implement the "restore" and "merge" operations. I find it hard to imagine an implementation that supports baselines that would not be able to cough up namespace information as readily as it could the version set. But perhaps someone has a counterexample. I agree that the minimal requirements are "restore" and "merge". (A hard-nosed person would observe that the DAV:version-set property is not required to meet either of these requirements.) But it feels like the DAV:version-set property is currently a half-measure; the information is of little use without the corresponding namespace info, which we know every implementation has in some form. The advantage of revealing the namespace info in addition to the version selection is that it makes it possible for a client to query a baseline and reconstruct the resource tree---client-side---without having to create any new objects on the server. Currently, the only way to reconstruct the resource tree for browsing purposes requires read-write access. I believe there is benefit in enabling clients who do not have the permission to create new workspaces to browse the contents of a existing baselines. The can only do this if the namespace info is divulged in addition to the version set.
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 11:42:32 UTC