RE: error condition for delete of VHR when VCR is in checked-in c ollection
"Julian Reschke" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.deltav |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Tim Ellison > Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 3:18 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: error condition for delete of VHR when VCR is in checked-in > c ollection > > > > > Julian wrote: > > > b) the server deletes the VHR and un-version-controls the > > VCR (to avoid breaking the live versioning properties). > > In what sense would the property be "broken"? Clearly from the server's > point of view there is a good reason why it may not want to so this, but > from a protocol point I don't see a problem. For example, what would be > the difference if the version-history resource is unaccessible > due to other > circumstances, such as authentication or reachability? > > The semantics of a version-controlled resource can be enforced even if the > version-history resource does not exist. Even if both the resources referenced by DAV:checked-in and DAV:checked-out do not exist?