- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:09:40 -0500
- To: "Ietf-Dav-Versioning@W3. Org" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de] given two collections with version controlled members: - a with member VCRs m1 and m2 - b with member VCRs m2 and m3 What is the expected result for COPY a Destination-URI: b Overwrite: T (let's assume no auto-versioning for now) Based on RFC2518 only I would expect a collection b with members "m1" and "m2". That is correct. However, RFC3253 clarifies that COPY/Overwrite updates (and doesn't replace), That is only for the case where there is a destination resource corresponding to a source resource. In case the destination resource does not correspond to the source resource, the expected (from 2518) thing happens, i.e. the destination resource is removed. So for example, since there is no "m3" resource in "a", following the COPY, there is no "m3" resource in "b". so I'd expect the following members of "b": - m1 (newly created, whether it's versioned or not depends on the automatic versioning behaviour of the server) Yes. - m2 (updated when m2 already was checked out, untouched when checked-in) b/m2 must be updated to have the content and dead properties of a/m2, or else the COPY (or at least, that part of the COPY if your COPY does best effort) MUST fail, and be reported as failing in the COPY response. - m3 (unchanged) No, b/m3 must not be mapped to any resource following the COPY. Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 12:10:19 UTC