W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2003

RE: DAV:getlastmodified of collections

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>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEFCIGAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> 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
> is changed only by adding a binding, removing a binding, or changing a
> 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
> different from the "state" of a collection, i.e. adding and removing a
> to a non-version-controlled resource does not change the
> 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.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 8 September 2003 09:58:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:29 UTC