W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Terms

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:37:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200102050237.VAA20009@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

   From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com

   > 1.  Can section 1.4 Notational Convention be placed
   > before Terms? This would eliminate some forward
   > references, thus making the document easier to read.

   Really, I don't recall any notational conventions used in terms (besides
   the occasional MUST or MUST NOT<g>).

Well, I don't really care one way or the other, and the MUST and the
MUST NOT are in fact a forward reference (albeit fairly harmless ones
:-), so I'd be happy to move the notational convention in front of the
terminology section, as requested.  Does anyone object?

   > Can the following sentence be added just after the first sentence
   > in section 1.3?  "Note that RFC 2518 uses terms from RFC 2068
   > which is superseded by RFC 2616."  This would make it easier for
   > someone who starts with this document (RFC 2518).  He or she
   > would know immediately that RFC 2068 can be ignored.

   I agree.

Will do.

   > 3. The difference between "Version-Controlled Resource"
   > and "Working Resource" is not clear.
   > In some sense, they are both working resources.
   > The only difference is that "Working Resources" disappear
   > after check-in and "Version-Controlled Resources" do not.

   I'd say that was quite a significant difference.

I agree, and also agree with all the following points
made by Tim (which I will omit).  I believe Tim makes
a compelling case for keeping the terminology as it is.

   > The definitions of activity resource, variant resource, and
   > variant-controlled resource are not clear.  I discussions with
   > Geoff and Jim the line was that an activity represents both a
   > branch and a change set.  That functionally they are the same.  A
   > variant seems to also represent a branch, or at least the end of
   > one.  Actually, it seem set of branches is a better description.
   > The division does not seem very clear to us.  Can someone
   > enlighten me?

   Not sure how to enlighten you other than recommending a re-read of
   RFC2616 variants which is what it took for me to 'get it'.  I'm
   sure others can give more constructive suggestions.

Unfortunately, that's the best suggestion I have as well.
Perhaps you could explain what about RFC2616 variants don't
make sense to you, and what you need to author variants that
is not provided by the variant option?

Received on Sunday, 4 February 2001 21:38:50 UTC

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