RE: Re (2): Labels and Status

Labels won't solve the problem, for us and I suspect also for you,
because you can't have more than one version in a version history have
the same label.

So although you could mark one version with the label "author_edgar",
you could only do that to one version.  I think by the very example you
chose you want to be need to have custom mutable properties.

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
> Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 2:21 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Cc: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de
> Subject: Re (2): Labels and Status
>
>
> "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> wrote:
> > Yes, many versioning systems have "status" properties on
> versions, and
> > the "status" property should be mutable, i.e. should be
> writable without
> > creating a new version.
> snip
> > Thus, versioning needs a general way to allow creation of custom
> > properties which are mutable, AND custom properties which
> are immutable.
> > The server would of course reject requests for mutable
> properties if it
> > does not support mutability, but we need a standard way for
> clients to
> > ask for this.
> I saw no reply to that yet so I will give my $0.02.
> I think a mutable status property is essential if I want to do some
> document management.
> To be more flexible I also would want to to have at least arbitrary
> mutable properties to add to a version.
> Or can I mimic that by adding multiple labels to a version ? E.g.
> doc#1 status_accepted, author_edgar
> doc#2 status_working, author_lisa (sometimes authors of
> documents change)
>
> Cheers, Edgar
>
>
> --
> edgar@edgarschwarz.de                    http://www.edgarschwarz.de
> *          DOSenfreie Zone.        Running Native Oberon.         *
> Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.     Albert Einstein

Received on Saturday, 3 February 2001 19:04:57 UTC