- From: Roy Seto <Roy.Seto@oracle.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 15:51:03 -0800
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
That sounds like a good process to me. On DAV:comment, I think the common use case is for authors to use a new comment most times they CHECKIN a new version, to document the changes specific to that version. To support this common case, I think the property list should say that servers MUST copy DAV:comment from the checked-out resource to the new version on CHECKIN. This allows clients to consolidate the PROPPATCH of DAV:comment with the PROPPATCH of any dead properties of the VCR (and other copied live properties) before CHECKIN, and makes the behavior atomic. I also think the property list should say that servers SHOULD NOT copy DAV:comment from the predecessor version to the VCR on CHECKOUT, so that clients do not need to do a PROPPATCH to guarantee that DAV:comment was not incorrectly carried forward from the previous version. Thanks, Roy "Clemm, Geoff" wrote: > Currently, the server gets to decide which live properties > of a VCR are captured by versions. > > It would be reasonable to identify a set of live > properties that SHOULD/MUST be captured by versions, > and publish this list in an internet draft and on > the DeltaV web site. This list would then be added > to the protocol document when we go to the next standard level. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roy Seto [mailto:Roy.Seto@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 8:50 PM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: Copying DAV:comment on CHECKIN and VERSION-CONTROL > > I don't see anything in the spec that requires DAV:comment > to be copied from checked-out resources to versions on > CHECKIN, or from unversioned resources to the initial > version on VERSION-CONTROL. > > In particular, since DAV:comment is a live property, it > doesn't get copied with the dead properties, and it is not > mentioned explicitly in postcondition > DAV:initialize-version-content-and-properties of Section 4.4 > or postcondition DAV:put-under-version-conrtrol of Section > 3.5. > > Is this the intended behavior? > > Thanks, > Roy
Received on Friday, 2 November 2001 18:46:56 UTC