- From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:28:25 -0500
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Jim, It would seem that if someone would want to track all the changes for a given activity, that the initial version would be part of those tracked changes. I would think it would be a problem for someone who would want to see what the "reason" was to bring the activity into existence. The figure in section 11 shows the resource "foo.html" with version "V1" associated with activity "Act-1". How is it possible to have this situation if VERSION-CONTROL doesn't accept the DAV:activity property as described by Geoff? It seems that in order to maintain the integrity of controlled resources, a server may want to restrict a given namespace to require an activity on all updates. Why shouldn't the protocol support this? I realize that this could render many non-activity aware clients useless. Thanks, Steve Speicher sspeiche@us.ibm.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2001 10:27:45 UTC