RE: Versioning implications for Referencing

Excellent -- I think that is the best approach.  That also makes
me feel better about saying direct references can be used instead
of the semi-direct ones (I was worried about the integrity 
statement in the current draft).

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Slein, Judith A [mailto:JSlein@crt.xerox.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 6:28 AM
To: Chris Kaler; Slein, Judith A; 'WebDAV'
Subject: RE: Versioning implications for Referencing


The current view is that the direct / redirect distinction is orthogonal to
the strong / weak distinction.  So we can tackle direct / redirect in the
current draft, but leave strong references for later.  The intent is not to
say anything about strong references (referential integrity) in the current
draft.  It just looked like too hard a problem, and not an area where we
could hoope to arrive at any consensus.  The requirements do discuss it,
however.

Judy

Judith A. Slein
Xerox Corporation
jslein@crt.xerox.com
(716)422-5169
800 Phillips Road 105/50C
Webster, NY 14580


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Kaler [mailto:ckaler@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 6:28 PM
> To: 'Slein, Judith A'; 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: Versioning implications for Referencing
> 
> 
> 	My preference would be for the latter:  by default,
> 	any method on a direct reference would be passed through, 
> 	but some header on the request would make the method affect 
> 	the reference itself.  I think we would still say that DELETE, 
> 	MOVE, and COPY always affect the reference, never its target.
> 
> This seems like a reasonable approach.  What expectations exist
> for direct references with respect to referential integrity?
> 
> Chris
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 November 1998 19:01:46 UTC