W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: version-selector => version-controlled-resource

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:45:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200012041945.OAA11693@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

I just finished an editing pass over the protocol, and the only time
we used the term "version-controlled" was in reference to resources
that had already had the VERSION-CONTROL operation applied to them, so
current usage in the protocol is consistent with replacing the term
"version selector" with "version-controlled resource".

I've never encountered the need to have a term for "any kind of
resource managed by DeltaV", so I don't think we need one (and even
if we did, I don't think we'd want to use "version-controlled for
that concept).

I'll post the results of this editing pass as a 10.7 working draft,
so folks can see what this really would look like.


   Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:18:27 -0800
   From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>

   Seems fine... but don't we already use "version controlled resource" to
   refer to any of the resources managed by DeltaV? (hrm; maybe not ; do we
   need/want one?)


   On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 12:57:46PM -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote:
   > At a recent deltav presentation I was giving, someone suggested
   > that "version selector" was not a very good term, since a checked
   > out version selector doesn't really select a version.  I believe
   > this is a very good point, and would like to consider selecting
   > a less misleading term.
   > My favorite would be "version controlled resource", which we
   > could shorten to just "controlled resource" in contexts where
   > it is unambiguous.
   > We can then say that the VERSION-CONTROL request creates a
   > version controlled resource at the request URL.  It also then
   > is very natural to refer to a checked-in version controlled
   > resource and a checked-out version controlled resource.
   > I'm going to make a pass through the document to see how
   > this works out in practice, and then if this goes smoothly,
   > I'd like to post it for general comment.  Any objections?
   > Cheers,
   > Geoff

   Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Monday, 4 December 2000 14:46:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC