- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:30:27 +0200
- To: "Tim Ellison" <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ellison > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:18 PM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: error condition for delete of VHR when VCR is in checked-in > c ollection > > > > > Julian wrote: > > > b) the server deletes the VHR and un-version-controls the > > VCR (to avoid breaking the live versioning properties). > > In what sense would the property be "broken"? Clearly from the server's > point of view there is a good reason why it may not want to so this, but > from a protocol point I don't see a problem. For example, what would be > the difference if the version-history resource is unaccessible > due to other > circumstances, such as authentication or reachability? > > The semantics of a version-controlled resource can be enforced even if the > version-history resource does not exist. Even if both the resources referenced by DAV:checked-in and DAV:checked-out do not exist?
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 09:31:28 UTC