- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 21:54:00 +0100
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
"Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org> wrote: > Jim, > > I think that trying to do too much "pipelining" in the process > may actually slow you down. I don't think it is appropriate > to wait until "during IESG last call" to respond to the 6-7 > issues that have been raised on the mailing list since the > -15 draft of 4/17/01. > > An IESG last call is appropriate when you have a document that > you believe has "resolved known design choices". Not revising > the document now means that you're asking people to review > something when you expect to change it. > > The issues I see on the mailing list are: > > > add a DAV:updated-set > > and DAV:ignored-set in the UPDATE response body. Agreed -- though I suspect this will be uncontrovertial. > # should use > # <dav:resourcetype> to indicate multiple pieces of type information Agreed -- ideally it would be sent to the WebDAV WG so that it may apply to ACLs and friends equally well. > # The response to a VERSION-CONTROL request does not carry > # a Location header similar to CHECKIN (Draft 15). I believe that this was agreed as a non-issue, or rather that Stefan wanted to know when VERSION-CONTROL had affected a resource and when it had not. > # Cache-Control: no-cache is not > # needed for the VERSION-CONTROL response. Again, a trivial change that I believe will be non-controvertial. > # "A collection has all the properties of a version." > # should say "A collection version has all the properties of a version." Editorial change. > # both the "checkout" and the "working-resource" features > # introduce a CHECKOUT method that is affected by these properties, > # the fork-control properties should be identified in > # both features. Editorial change. > although perhaps you have a different (longer) list? I'm kicking myself for not keeping the list, but I guess I was expecting Geoff to do so. I have asked him to make it generally available as I believe that there are other issues that were raised (but don't ask me to name them without searching<g>) Your point is well taken, but I don't think it is as bad as you make out. Tim
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2001 16:55:12 UTC