- From: John Hall <johnhall@evergo.net>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 14:08:49 -0700
- To: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
>>The reason why I worded the postcondition this way is that if there is no version history resource, then the versions are scattered randomly around the URL namespace, and there is no standard way for a client to find them again. What is wrong with: REPORT VCR <version-tree><prop><version-name>/</prop></version-tree> Or PROPFIND VCR <propfind><prop><predecessor-set/></prop></propfind> ==================================== >> So if anyone wants to reject this compromise on the grounds that we should *never* allow a server to blow away versions because of a VCR deletion, please do so (:-). Our customers needs are directly opposed to that, and materially damaged by that position. It has nothing to do with my ability to code the behavior (not blowing them away is easier, in fact). If consistency is this important, we should *require* versions to be blown away, unless the client specifically specifies something else. That solves the consistency problem without preventing my ability to serve my customer base.
Received on Thursday, 14 June 2001 17:08:51 UTC