Re: Relationship between BIND and RFC 3253

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