Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253

The semantics that let you use VERSION-CONTROL to "restore" any resource 
from its version-history are defined in section 6.7.
Section 14.8 is just the extended semantics of VERSION-CONTROL when 
restoring version-controlled-collections.

You cannot use BIND to "restore" a version history, because the child of a 
version-controlled-folder is a version-controlled-resource, not a 
version-history, whereas BIND is defined to make the specified resource a 
child of the specified collection.

Cheers,
Geoff




Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be> wrote on 08/19/2008 04:23:18 AM:

> 
> > But wrt point 2, RFC3243 does provide a way to reinstate a version 
> > history, by specifying a Version in the body of a VERSION-CONTROL 
> > request.  Also note that a BIND request would not provide a way to 
> > reinstate a version history, because reinstating a version history 
> > is done by creating a new version-controlled resource whose VERSION- 
> > HISTORY property identifies that version history (and this cannot be 
> > done via a BIND operation).
> 
> In RFC 3253 I find in section 14.8 that you can indeed reinstate the 
> version
> history of a collection in this way, but I can't find anything like 
> that for
> resources that are not collections.
> 
> I see no evidence for the statement that a new version-controlled 
> resource
> should be created for reinstating a version history. This seems to be 
> what
> happens when the VERSION-CONTROL method is used, but that is not the 
> same
> thing.
> 
> The usage of BIND I propose is semantically equivalent to an addition to
> the version-controlled-binding-set property of the parent collection 
> of the
> request URI.
> 
> Werner.
> --
> Werner Donné  --  Re                                     http://www.
> pincette.biz
> Engelbeekstraat 8 
> http://www.re.be
> BE-3300 Tienen
> tel: (+32) 486 425803   e-mail: werner.donne@re.be
> 
> 
> 
> 
>