Re (2): Removing a resource: A compromise that satisfies?

Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com wrote:
> ..and there was a flood of messages to the list.
> After following the arguments (any my blood pressure rising and
> falling numerous times)
Me too :-).
My understanding is that a versioning unaware client should NEVER
have the side effect of deleting version resources it doesn't know
about. The server side concerns Lisa raises are another matter I don't
have the time to discuss at the moment.

Now to Geoffs proposal. 
Clemm, Geoff wrote:
> 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."
Here you draw a fine line between explicitly having a version
history ('support the version-history feature') or implicitly
having it ('appears in the DAV:version-tree report') because
the version tree is the fundamental data of a version history.
Or isn't it ?
To me it seems that VERSION-CONTROL is providing a version-history
light in the form of the version-tree report. Does that make sense ?

Cheers, Edgar

P.S. I would like to write more but I'm leaving for a birthday
party just now. 

-- 
edgar@edgarschwarz.de                    http://www.edgarschwarz.de
*          DOSenfreie Zone.        Running Active Oberon.         *
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.     Albert Einstein

Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 07:07:21 UTC