- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 00:07:30 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I just wanted to verify that there still was somebody out there who was willing to stand up for it. There actually was consensus reached a while back that this property merited inclusion in the protocol. So now that one of the supporters has spoken up, once it is clarified that COPY sets the DAV:precursor-set property to be the URL of the version (as opposed to, appending that URL to the existing contents of the DAV:precursor-set), are there any implementation objections to making this a required property? As Tim pointed out, we only make something optional if it truly presents an implementation barrier, not just because a particular client isn't planning on using it. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Rick Rupp [mailto:rick.rupp@merant.com] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:39 PM To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Subject: [ietf-dav-versioning] <none> The precursor-set property seems to be an important concept of a versions history. Without it there is no indication that a version has a relationship to another version history. I don't think it will be unusual for a client to create a new version by copying from a different version history. Will it be important to know the new version came from a different version history? I think the answer is yes and the precursor-set facilitates this.
Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2001 00:09:51 UTC