- From: John Hall <johnhall@evergo.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:40:50 -0700
- To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
As I read the spec, this simply amounts to our original request. Namely, the server is free to delete versions -- at least if it doesn't support the version-history feature. Because I see no way a version would be listed in a version-tree report other than its 'own'. So while that might be acceptable to me and Lisa, I don't think it will be acceptable to others. Further, our acceptance is somewhat conditional on being able to not implement the version-history feature. Apparently, it was suggested that a client which would prefer to use global properties would have to use the version-history URL. Thus forcing us to implement this object just to get global properties. I think Rick Rupp raised some valid points. So I feel at this point that it is better to A) add new protocol elements and B) make sure that a version-aware client can specify either behavior and tell which behavior was implemented. As elements go they are relatively simple flags. Since I haven't been involved in a discussion like this before I may not understand the true impact of protocol elements. But it looks pretty easy from my code base. -----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 00:41:05 UTC