- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 18:06:05 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
The intent for "precursor-set" was that it capture the last "copy", not that it accumulate all the copies. But I agree that this is not at all clear from the semantics of the COPY operation, so this needs to be clarified. The reason it is a set is to allow a client to add additional values if there has been a logical "merge" to that resource. But a COPY just sets it to be a single value. A more general question: I personally am not attached to the "precursor" property. Does anyone want to argue for keeping it in the spec? If not, I propose we get rid of it, since it seems to be a source of confusion. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: John Hall [mailto:johnhall@evergo.net] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2001 3:06 PM To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Subject: A non-forking server, precussor revisited. 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 18:06:36 UTC