- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 16:09:29 +0200
- To: Werner Donné <werner.donne@re.be>
- CC: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Werner Donné wrote: > There are indeed no additional semantics for UNCHECKOUT in section 14. Well, we have an erratum for UNCHECKOUT in Section 14, and Geoff has already proposed a resolution; do you disagree with it? > Therefore, I think the semantics of section section 4.5 apply, because > a version-controlled collection is also a version-controlled resource. Yes, those apply; but how exactly do they help clarifying what the server needs to do? > Though the introduction of section 14 mentions workspaces, I don't think > the merge feature is limited to workspaces. It is allowed to use a > version-controlled collection as the request URI and a collection version > as the source. If both would be associated with the same version history, > for example, it would be strange if in such a case new version-controlled > members would be created as described in section 4.11. That's possible (I haven't implemented merge); and maybe that's a separate erratum. Anyway, I'd like to stay focused on the BIND vs RFC3253 issue -- I think it's sufficient if we describe a case where RFC 3253 *clearly* requires BIND semantics; so is the currently proposed text correct? BR, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 14:10:13 UTC