- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 22:38:56 -0700
- To: "Tim Ellison" <tim@peir.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
So are we back to saying that supporting Working Resource feature requires also supporting UPDATE? That's what I'm trying to avoid. Is there a better way for these two features to not depend on each other? Furthermore, it's surprising to me, and perhaps to clients as well, that working resource checkins and in-place checkins work so differently: one ends up with the VCR pointing to the latest version at the end, and the other doesn't (by default). I would expect the default behaviour of both of these to be the same. Perhaps Jim's proposal could instead be worded so that auto-update was the default, and "do not update" is the exceptional behaviour that the client must request. lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ellison > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 3:36 PM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: Auto update of VCR when checking an associated working > resource > > > Lisa wrote: > > I'm in favour of this. > > > > One addendum: if the server does NOT support the UPDATE > method, then the > > client MUST include the DAV:auto-update property in the CHECKIN request. > > (The DAV:auto-update property is on the working resource). I > don't want to > make it mandatory since there are cases where creating a version that does > not update the version-controlled resource is desirable. > Without UPDATE it would only be 'referenceable'(ahem) by the version URL. > > Regards, > Tim
Received on Friday, 13 July 2001 01:39:03 UTC