- From: Sankar Virdhagriswaran <sv@crystaliz.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:18:12 -0500
- To: "John Stracke" <francis@netscape.com>, "WebDAV WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
John, > > - Under "Definitions" : I don't think it is necessary that abstracted > > versioned resources do not exist. In fact, I don't really see > the point of > > this term. It really assumes you have some Vgraph like implementation. > > Well, yes. Isn't that where we are? The "CM must be an optional feature" > requirement, which came out of the Chicago meeting, takes the > "versioning is > the degenerate case of CM" approach out of the running. Given > that, the only > proposals on the table are Vgraph-based. I don't understand your point. How would CM being an optional feature take out "versioning is the degenerate case of CM" as it applies to "presenting and searching through (below) a version graph" - which sounds like the requirement. A CM based system may (in the non optional mode) be able to "generate" a version graph and allow it to be searched by the client. Notice that the CM system may or may not implement vgraphs. It might be able to derive that information from its implementation (very easy to do). Assuming an "implementation approach based on vgraph" limits the second class of systems (CM systems) in ways I don't think should be limited.
Received on Thursday, 24 September 1998 17:17:17 UTC