- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:45:13 -0500 (EST)
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> > > In 2.9, the root version of a version history "must > > not be deleted". Why is that? > "Otherwise you lose a key semantic of a version tree, namely it > is connected and every version is reachable from the > DAV:root-version. I don't see that the benefit of allowing > deletion of the root version outweighs the benefit of have the > version tree be connected." Then make the requirement that the version tree be connected. It's quite possible for implementations to meet the requirement that the version tree be connected, and provide this valuable functionality for clients. On the other hand, if you do not require that the version tree be connected, then it's quite possible for implementations to end up with an unconnected version tree even without deleting the root version. I think the point here is to make the requirement state what the client needs, rather than what you think is needed in order to get what the client needs. Good point. I'll delete the precondition and add a postcondition that says: "following the deletion, there must be a root version that is a predecessor of all other versions in that version history". In particular, this is trivially satisfiable for linear version histories (which I'm guessing is what Lisa had in mind :-). Cheers, Geoff
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2001 19:46:13 UTC