- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 08:14:17 +0100
- To: <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Right. That's the purpose of making the *check* for the element required, but the support *optional*. Obviously we also want to make sure that the error condition can be properly detected, but that's a separated issue... Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:22 AM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Wallmer, Martin'; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > Subject: RE: Relationship between scopes and version histories > > > > > > 2. If the client specifies <d:include-versions />, the > > server MUST take > > care > > > of versions or MUST reject the request. > > I thought this was going to be optional for servers? To be clear, a > server that does not handle versioning must look for this element and > reject the request? > > That's fine, I was worried that the client wouldn't be able to tell the > difference between successful responses that did or did not check > versions. > > lisa > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 02:14:53 UTC