- From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 09:22:10 -0500
- To: "'Geoffrey M. Clemm'" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
OK, I'll add it to the draft I'm preparing this week and we can have some discussions of interactions between versioning and referencing / collections at Orlando. --Judy Judith A. Slein CR&T/ADSTC jslein@crt.xerox.com 8*222-5169 > -----Original Message----- > From: Geoffrey M. Clemm [mailto:gclemm@tantalum.atria.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 10:09 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: Versioning implications for Referencing > > > > I agree with the choice of a special request header. > > I believe it is likely that the "PIN" method will be replaced with a > property update, so the request header that would make GETPROP and > PUTPROP refer to the reference itself rather than the reference target > is a preferable (in addition to being more general) solution than any > special handling of a "PIN" method. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > From: "Slein, Judith A" <JSlein@crt.xerox.com> > Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 09:28:11 -0500 > > 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. > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 1998 09:20:09 UTC