- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:33:14 -0700
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
That's OK by me, as far as cleaning out versions goes! lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 8:04 PM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: Removing a resource: A compromise that satisfies? > > > How about an alternative approach: > > Add a new postcondition to DELETE that says: > > "If a server does not support the version-history feature, > then it MAY automatically delete a version resource if that > version no longer appears in the DAV:version-tree report > of any version-controlled resource." > > I believe this allows John and Lisa to do what they want, > without violating the concern of several of us that > a client should be able to count on a version being > preserved by a server while it is still being referenced > by another resource visible on the server. > > I believe this approach is better than adding a body > to DELETE, because it does not require adding additional > protocol elements. > > Cheers, > Geoff
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 00:35:11 UTC