RE: Version-controlled collection resources - I am still missing something

I'm happy to change this from "the DAV:root-version" to be
"undefined".  Before I do so, does anyone want to argue in
favor of keeping it as the DAV:root-version?

And in case anyone needs some context, the question is:

When a new version-controlled collection is created by
applying VERSION-CONTROL with a collection version
to an unmapped URL, what should the DAV:checked-in
property value be for the initial version-controlled
internal members of that new version-controlled collection?

Cheers,
Geoff 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Amsden [mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 1:19 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: Version-controlled collection resources - I am still
missing something


Tim says:
I'm mildly in favor of leaving it undefined, and mildly in favour of 
making
it the DAV:root-version, and strong in favor of selecting the 'right'
version <g>  (... we could have these revision selection rules that
...hmmm)(joke)

I agree, but probably prefer leaving it undefined. We know using 
DAV:root-version won't be useful to almost any client even though its the 
only good choice servers currently have. If its undefined, servers that 
support activities could advertise a "main" activity that they use. This 
might be a good differentiator without introducing any interoperability 
issues.

Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 14:06:58 UTC