- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:28:59 +0200
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:05 PM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: error condition for delete of VHR when VCR is in checked-in > c ollection > > .. > In case b), there's no way a subsequent CHECKIN or CHECKOUT can > satisfy RFC3253's postconditions, so I'd consider this a broken > state. There shouldn't be a protocol-tolerated way to get into this > state, right? > > Which CHECKOUT/CHECKIN postconditions couldn't be satisfied? > I do agree that some operations could not succeed (e.g. UNCHECKOUT). You are right. CHECKIN/CHECKOUT would continue to work.
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2002 03:29:32 UTC