- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 13:29:38 +0200
- To: "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org > [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm > Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 4:28 AM > To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > Subject: RE: BIND and DAV:checkout-set property > > > > One could equally well make the argument that a binding-unaware > client would be even more surprised when it encounters a checked-out > resource whose URL does not appear in the DAV:checkout-set of > its DAV:checked-out version. I think this is less likely, but of course I can't speak of all clients. Anyway, the spec says that the property identifies *resources*, not URLs or bindings. Finally, I think we should try to decide what to do and *not* leave that up to the server. If we do that, reporting all bindings obviously would be a bad choice because there's always the potential for bind loops causing the set of URLs for that resource to be ... big. > I do not see anything in the current specification language that > requires a server to do it one way or the other, so until we > get a compelling reason to do it one way or the other, I'd probably > leave the language as it is. I think the spec (revision) really needs to clarify a few things regarding binding behaviour, and this is one of those things. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Thursday, 4 September 2003 07:29:48 UTC