- From: Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:50:42 +0100
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Julian wrote: > > 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? In principle, yes. For example, if a site wanted to allow anonymous users to see the current state of the website, by browsing the version-controlled resources; but not allow them to view the history or checked-in, checked-out states. The server may still ensure that the semantics are maintained. I just wondered what you meant by the properties being 'broken'. If you envisage that to mean the references cannot be 'de-referenced' then there are multiple reasons why that may be the case. I see DELETE to be the inverse of BIND (and agree with your descriptions earlier in the thread), plus whatever further semantics we choose to apply to DELETE for convenience. Regards, Tim
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 12:50:58 UTC