- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 21:13:50 -0500
- To: "Ietf-Dav-Versioning (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
From: Kirmse, Daniel [mailto:daniel.kirmse@sap.com] From: Peter Raymond [mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com] >[Daniel said:] >>For COPY I'd expect to got a new VCR at the destination with an >>exact copy of properties. This implies that the new created VCR >>must share the version-history with the source VCR. Is this >>correct? Is this desirable? >I think this is desirable and correct but with one caveat... One could debate whether it is desireable, but it definitely is not correct (:-) ... see section 3.14 that Daniel quotes below. But 3.14 states (DAV:copy-creates-new-resource): If the source of a COPY is a version-controlled resource or version, and if there is no resource at the destination of the COPY, then the COPY creates a new non-version-controlled resource at the destination of the COPY. The new resource MAY automatically be put under version control, but the resulting version-controlled resource MUST be associated with a new version history created for that new version-controlled resource, and all postconditions for VERSION-CONTROL apply to the request. so there would be a new version-history for the copy-target. What is right here??? The spec (:-). I certainly wouldn't have thought that moving a VCR would create a new history resource. MOVE does not, but COPY does. This is true in general for MOVE and COPY, i.e. that MOVE just gives a resource a new name (URL), while COPY creates a new resource. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 21:14:24 UTC