- From: John Hall <johnhall@evergo.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:06:01 -0700
- To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
In my first reading of the specification, I remind myself that I probably don't fully understand the spec or how people envision that it be implemented. I note that there is support for both a forking and a non-forking server. A server does not have to implement features that allow people to 'fork' version controlled resources. I appreciate that. Some situations and clients do require that capacity, but many other systems would like to do a 'simple' versioning system and don't require this. But it seems that the separation isn't clean. If I don't support forking, UPDATE, or MERGE, then I see no reason at all to keep track of precursor-set. Geoff said precursor-set was only one href, but I thought it was each and every href that had ever been copied on top of a versioned resource -- so it is an unlimited set of href's. So I would strongly prefer that precursor-set be optional. An alternative would be that an implementation MAY not track precursor-set and MAY set it equal to predecessor-set IF it doesn't support MERGE or UPDATE.
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 15:06:02 UTC