- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 16:23:29 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
From: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de [mailto:Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de] > > By having (DAV:must-be-root-version) as a postcondition, you're > > preventing an implementation from deleting the last remaining > > version from a version history. I assume this is your intent? > > Like so many other things, it must be inferred rather than > > finding it stated in the text. *sigh* > The entire postcondition statement is: > (DAV:must-be-root-version): If the root version of a version > history is deleted, there MUST be another version that is > the new root version, i.e. that is the ancestor of all other > versions in the version history. > I think it is easily implied that you cannot therefore delete > *all* versions of a version history and satisfy this > postcondition; but I have no objection to adding to this > statement if you really think it needs it. I agree that it's rather clear that you can't delete the last version. OTOH I find the name a little bit misleading. Perhaps because I'm not a native speaker. I would prefer must-be-a-root-version or perhaps better must-exist-root-version. How about "DAV:version-history-has-root" ? Cheers, Geoff
Received on Saturday, 2 June 2001 16:24:10 UTC