- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:14:33 -0400
- To: "'DeltaV'" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
I have a working draft that addresses the following issues that have been raised since draft-16: - Added XML token for various postconditions (Peter). - 1.6: Clarified when 403 and 409 are to be used (Peter). - 3.2.2: Replaced DAV:auto-checkout and DAV:auto-checkin with DAV:auto-version (Lisa). - 8.2: Clarified the different between LABEL/set and LABEL/add (Peter). - 8.2: Changed DAV:must-not-be-checked-out to DAV:must-be-checked-in - 12.6: Changed DAV:create-empty-baseline postcondition to be DAV:create-new-baseline (Peter). - 12.6: Fixed DAV:must-have-no-version-controlled-members text (Edgar). Unfortunately, I currently have no connectivity to the DeltaV web site (apparently a virus-related IT issue), so I cannot post the working draft yet, but the wording on DAV:auto-version is just the one I posted to the working group. With regard to Lisa's specific question, I was assuming that an empty value for the DAV:auto-version property would indicate no auto-versioning functionality for that resource. I notice that we are missing a "?" in the DTD, which I will add so that an empty value is allowed. Does anyone prefer an explicit DAV:none value for this case instead? Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 10:05 AM To: Clemm, Geoff; 'DeltaV' Subject: RE: auto-checkout and auto-checkin I assume there's also an empty value for servers that don't do auto-versioning? Or does the property disappear? I still haven't seen a draft with this replaced. lisa > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:55 AM > To: 'DeltaV' > Subject: RE: auto-checkout and auto-checkin > > > Oops. I had "auto-checkout" in a couple of places where I meant > to have "auto-version" (cut'n'paste can be risky :-). Here's the > fixed proposal: > > > 3.2.2 DAV:auto-version > > If the DAV:auto-version value is DAV:checkout-checkin, when a > modification request (such as PUT/PROPPATCH) is applied to a > checked-in version-controlled resource, the request is automatically > preceded by a checkout and followed by a checkin operation. > > If the DAV:auto-version value is DAV:checkout-unlocked-checkin, when a > modification request is applied to a checked-in version-controlled > resource, the request is automatically preceded by a checkout > operation. If the resource is not write-locked, the request is > automatically followed by a checkin operation. > > If the DAV:auto-version value is DAV:checkout, when a modification > request is applied to a checked-in version-controlled resource, the > request is automatically preceded by a checkout operation. > > If the DAV:auto-version value is DAV:locked-checkout, when a > modification request is applied to a write-locked checked-in > version-controlled resource, the request is automatically preceded by > a checkout operation. > > If a write-locked resource was automatically checked out, when the > write lock is removed (such as from an UNLOCK or lock timeout), if the > resource has not yet been checked in, the removal of the write lock is > automatically preceded by a checkin operation. > > A server MAY refuse to allow the value of the DAV:auto-version > property to be modified. > > <!ELEMENT auto-versionout > (checkout-checkin | checkout-unlocked-checkin | checkout | > locked-checkout) > > > <!ELEMENT checkout-checkin EMPTY> > <!ELEMENT checkout-unlocked-checkin EMPTY> > <!ELEMENT checkout EMPTY> > <!ELEMENT locked-checkout EMPTY> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@Rational.Com] > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2001 7:11 PM > To: 'DeltaV' > Subject: RE: auto-checkout and auto-checkin > > > Clearly there is significant support for going back to > DAV:auto-version (as opposed to DAV:auto-checkout,DAV:auto-checkin). > If nobody objects to going back to DAV:auto-version , I'm willing to > do so (I believe I was the most enthusiastic supporter of the original > switch to auto-checkout and auto-checkin).
Received on Monday, 6 August 2001 20:50:33 UTC