Re: The version-tree report for version history resources
Geoffrey M Clemm <[email protected]> Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:39:17 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.deltav |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OFA4F18F1E.B819F924-ON852571DB.003FB85A-852571DB.004002E1@us.ibm.com> |
This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 00400240852571DB_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Yes, that would be very reasonable, but note that in practice it is much more likely for the client to have in hand a URL for a VCR or a Version, on which a version-tree report is defined. Cheers, Geoff Werner wrote on 08/31/2006 05:54:58 AM: > Shouldn't the version-tree report also apply to version > history resources when the version-history feature is > supported? It seems like the most obvious resource to > ask it to. --=_alternative 00400240852571DB_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" <br><tt><font size=2>Yes, that would be very reasonable, but note that in practice it is much more likely for the client to have in hand a URL for a VCR or a Version, on which a version-tree report is defined.</font></tt> <br> <br><tt><font size=2>Cheers,</font></tt> <br><tt><font size=2>Geoff</font></tt> <br> <br><tt><font size=2>Werner wrote on 08/31/2006 05:54:58 AM:<br> > Shouldn't the version-tree report also apply to version<br> > history resources when the version-history feature is<br> > supported? It seems like the most obvious resource to<br> > ask it to.<br> <br> </font></tt> --=_alternative 00400240852571DB_=--