- From: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 11:16:57 +0200
- To: Manfred Baedke <manfred.baedke@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Hi Manfred, Perhaps the pre-condition in section 3.13 could be replaced with a final paragraph in the section saying that the operation may be rejected. It is also formulated like that in other areas of the specification, such as when the update of some property may be rejected. Such a paragraph would in place for section 13.8 too. Regards, Werner. Manfred Baedke wrote: > Hi Werner, > > being a MAY requirement, the precondition definition in section 3.13 is > nothing really normative. Maybe its only me, but I find the concept of a > precondition containing only MAY requirements rather strange. > > Regards, > Manfred > > Werner Donné wrote: >> Hi Manfred, >> >> Shouldn't then a pre-condition be added in section 13.8 of RFC 3253, >> analogous to the one in section 3.13? >> >> Regards, >> >> Werner. >> >> Manfred Baedke wrote: >> >>> Hi Werner, >>> >>> This is of course allowed, IMHO. More generally, a server is allowed to >>> reject the deletion of any resource for whatever reason. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Manfred >>> >>> Werner Donné wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> When an activity is deleted all references to it should be removed. >>>> Versions that have the activity in their activity-set, for example, >>>> should have their activity-set updated. Versions, which were created >>>> on a branch represented by the activity, all of the sudden are not >>>> on that branch anymore and in an implicit way. This seems rather >>>> strange and dangerous. Would it be allowed to reject the deletion >>>> of the activity in this case? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Werner. >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> -- Werner Donné -- Re Engelbeekstraat 8 B-3300 Tienen tel: (+32) 486 425803 e-mail: werner.donne@re.be
Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 09:15:51 UTC