- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 15:45:20 +0200
- To: "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Geoffrey M Clemm > Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 2:11 PM > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org > Subject: RE: DAV:getlastmodified of collections > > > > "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 09/05/2003 06:08:11 PM: > > But then we're missing the case of VERSION-CONTROL on a versionable but > not > > yet version-controlled resource that lives inside a versioned collection > (in > > which case I'd say the state of the parent collection *does* change). > > I suggest we keep the semantics very simple, and say that DAV:getlastmodified > is changed only by adding a binding, removing a binding, or changing a binding > to new resource. Putting an existing resource under version control does > none of these things, so it should not result in an update to > DAV:getlastmodified. > > Note that in general the "version-controlled state" of a collection will be > different from the "state" of a collection, i.e. adding and removing a binding > to a non-version-controlled resource does not change the version-controlled > state of a collection, but does change the state of the collection. This seems to imply that the version-controlled state is not a subset of the state, or more precisely, that you can modify the version-controlled state without changing the state. This IMHO seems to be a weird way to define the state of a collection. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 8 September 2003 09:58:34 UTC