- From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 11:29:57 +0100
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote: > Before we got much further with this thread, let's > examine the underlying premise that "deleting the > versions when the VCR is deleted" is an important > use case. Whether it is an important use case or not, the proposal that you made so far seems relatively harmless since it permits a server to delete versions in a fashion that retains the 'referential integrity' that people wanted. Clearly there will be servers that do not allow version deletion at all, and they are free to retain that policy; but for servers that do allow version deletion I do not see significant difference to the server implementing the proposal and a client implementing the same deletion as a policy. Either way the versions will have gone. > This is the web, so everybody and their grandmother > (and for sure, www.google.com) will have cached copies > of anything you put up on the web, so an argument > that blowing away old versions at server defined > URL's will somehow make that data go away is rather > unrealistic, isn't it? I don't buy this argument at all -- the argument for DELETE is not 'erase' the data but rather to make it unaccesible (it is a namespace operation)? > And if it doesn't really go > away, why do we care that there are also a few obscure > server-defined URL's that contain a copy of a > version of this data? The server admin sure cares that there are copies of the version data left on the server. > So perhaps we should reach agreement that this is a > compelling use case before we consider supporting it > by introducing either additional protocol elements > or making server behavior less consistent and predictable. This is always a good idea. > So my revised position is that we defer any action > on this proposal until the group reaches consensus > that this is in fact a compelling use case. Agreed. Tim
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 07:12:49 UTC