- From: Juergen Reuter <reuter@ira.uka.de>
- Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:21:40 +0100
- To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- cc: reuter@ira.uka.de, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Greg and Juergen expressed their desire to split the document before
> we cleanly separated out the core and options sections. So I'd
> be interested in hearing whether they still believe it should be
> split, especially since one of the prime motivations for doing the
> split is to defer the submission of the options to the IESG.
As I already stated on Dec 4th, my point was not to split the document,
but to refine the structure of the whole document. The orthogonality of
options, as claimed in the introduction, makes the protocol much more
understandable, provided that the claim really holds true.
But 7.4 says:
If a server supports the workspace option, it MUST also support the
checkout option and the version-history option.
So, options are not completely orthogonal. I think there was at least
one other such constraint somewhere in the protocol, if I remember right.
Hence it might be worth to present these dependencies at some central
place, possibly as a figure, so that the structure really gets clear.
Greetings,
Juergen
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 11:22:19 UTC