I agree with Julian that this is what should happen.
This is what section 1.7 is intended to make clear (but apparently wasn't
fully successful :-).
Cheers,
Geoff
Julian wrote on 07/12/2006 06:07:23 AM:
>
> Werner Donné schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Say we want to copy a collection to an existing version controlled
> > resource in a repository that puts everything under version control
> > automatically. The version history of the destination should be
> > kept and the resource should be updated.
> >
> > What should happen if the source and destination collection have
> > internal members with the same name? Should the internal members
> > in the destination collection also be updated or should the
> > destination collection get new version controlled resources for
> > those?
>
> I think they should be updated, although RFC3253 isn't very clear on
> that. Check
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3253.html#rfc.section.1.7> and
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-rfc2518bis-15.
> html#rfc.section.9.8.4>.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>