- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:54:10 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Yes, we normally prefer to define constraints in the form of preconditions, but in this case, the single statement "must never change" in the property definition was so much simpler that repeating it in each "mutating" method. But I agree that this normative aspect of the property definition should be highlighted. I suggest we change the "has" to a "MUST have" in the definition to make this point (a change that fits the "no-repagination" goal :-). Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Peter Raymond [mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 11:16 AM To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org Subject: RE: Legal operations on members of a Baseline Collection... Hi, OK...I guess that section does make it clear. But, how much of the normative text should be captured in pre and post conditions? Without any pre or post condition to enforce the paragraph that you quoted do vendors have to obey that paragraph? Would I am getting at is that other areas where we are enforcing something we explicitly enforce it using pre or post conditions. But not this one. Regards,
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 12:55:08 UTC