- From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:50:35 -0800
- To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Back on December 1, 2000, I opined that splitting off core versioning from the options seemed like a good idea, giving reasons both for and against the split [1]. At the time, Greg Stein [2] and Juergen Reuter both favored a split, though Juergen suggested that the split criteria should be to include all versioning features in one document, and configuration management features in another [3]. Geoff Clemm stated that he would be willing to make such a split, but indicated that he was concerned that this might delay core [4]. On February 2, 2001, the issue resurfaced, with Larry Masinter favoring splitting off core, adding a new rationale [5]: "Everything outside of core versioning is much less likely to progress along standards track at the same rate as core versioning (more time to get independent interoperable implementations of every feature); by linking "core versioning" with "non-core" in the initial spec, you're setting yourself up for having to split the documents later. Much of non-core is controversial." On this same date, Mark Hale began a thread titled, "Complexity and Core Considerations", where he polls working group members on whether they think the specification should be split along core/non-core lines [6]. I replied, stating that I felt the specification should be split [7], to which Chris Kaler [8] and Lisa Dusseault [9] agreed. Geoff Clemm [10], Tim Ellison [11],and James Hunt [12] all disagreed, and want the protocol specification unsplit. So, at present we have six in favor of a split, three against. Not entirely rough consensus, but it certainly shows a leaning in one direction. - Jim [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2000OctDec/0209.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2000OctDec/0213.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2000OctDec/0224.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2000OctDec/0223.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0244.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0266.html [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0270.html [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0273.html [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0339.html [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0322.html [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0320.html [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-dav-versioning/2001JanMar/0350.html
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 14:51:18 UTC