- From: John Hall <johnhall@evergo.net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:14:44 -0700
- To: "'Jim Amsden'" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Well, not having workspaces, baselines, merge's, updates, etc. I can't see any reason to waste server storage on it. Not that I see much utility in this property with those features, either. I'd be happy if the element were removed and listed as a proposed (later) addition. > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Amsden > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 7:35 AM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: Re: Actually, you don't need COPY or MOVE, what you > really seem to want is CLONE. > > > I guess I agree with John. This sort of information is > generally kept in > comments or application specific properties. The question we > have to ask > ourselves is if there is any need to have precursor > information available > in an interoperable way. I don't know off the top of my head > any other > system that supports this, but it could be something I just > never used. > > I also agree with Geoff in that there are good arguments either way. > However I'd lean in the direction of leaving things out if > there is any > doubt. They can always be added in later when we have more > experience and > the use cases are more crisp. We don't want to hold up the > protocol on > such issues either if we can help it. > > > > > I still can't see where it is useful to know about two > different version histories, one that you have poor > information on (the source of the > COPY) and an old version history that is no longer relevent > to the actual content (since you overlayed it). > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Hall > > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 8:30 PM > > To: 'Rick Rupp'; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > > Subject: RE: [ietf-dav-versioning] <none> > > > > > > I disagree. > > > > I see no difference between creating a new version from > > scratch and copying data from somewhere else to create a new > > version from scratch. If I open file1 and then do a save-as > > on file2, the server doesn't know and precussor isn't set in > > any case. So why is it so important to know that someone > > grabbed a copy of file1's current version and copied it to > > file2 without editing it first? If you really want the > > version history, use MOVE not COPY. > > > > Do you have a 'for example' use case where that origin > > information is valuable? And would it still remain valuable > > after a few more edits were done? > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > > > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rick Rupp > > > Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 5:39 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 12:14:45 UTC