- From: Sankar Virdhagriswaran <sv@crystaliz.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:42:13 -0400
- To: <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- Cc: <bob@continuus.com>
Jim, I think there are atleast two questions to ask: a) Should dealing with configurations go into the requirement document. In other words is it a requirement for the DAV protocol to deal with configurations. (this is the point I was debating in this discussion thread). My position here is *yes*. b) Should configurations as a requirement be dealt with in the first version of the protocol draft. My position here is *it depends*. From what Bob said , it sounds to me that configurations are a requirement (atleast from his perspective), but need not be scheduled to be addressed in the first release. This is my position too. Given the way we are going now (based on your announced schedule), I don't see versioning happening in the next 6 months. If that is the case, versioning (and configurations hopefully) really are dealt with in the second version of the Web-DAV protocol. In other words, my sense of our progress is that DAV *will not* address versioning in the first release of the protocol draft. and hence addressing configurations is a moot issue. Correct me if my analysis is wrong. My position is not that we need to address configurations *now*. We are after all discussing the requirements document and *now* impacts scheduling and technical specification evolution issue. My position is that dealing with configurations *is a requirement* for DAV. Which version of the draft protocol addresses configurations depends on how much progress we make on nailing down the spec. of versions and properties. Hope this helps.
Received on Thursday, 25 September 1997 10:38:34 UTC