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

Workspace option comments

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 00:03:09 -0800
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AMEPKEBLDJJCCDEJHAMIMENPCIAA.ejw@cse.ucsc.edu>
1) Ambiguity of the term "resource".

Section 7.1.1, DAV:workspace-checkout-set property:

> This property identifies each checked-out resource whose
> DAV:workspace property identifies this workspace.

Does this property identify a "version controlled resource", or
a "version resource" (or both)? (Or "version history resource?") Just
saying "resource" is ambiguous.

The same problem affects Section 7.2.1 (DAV:Workspace). If a
server OPTIONally supports this property, which types of
resources should have this property defined on it?  Is this
defined on "version controlled resources" or "version
resources" (or both)?  Also, it sounds like non-version-controlled
resources should also support this property.  Should
"version history resources" support this property -- I can't
see much need for that, but maybe there is a use case.

2) Section 7.7

This section is being defined as a delta to the definition of
VERSION-CONTROL given in Section 2.5, which states:

> (DAV:put-under-version-control): If the request-URL identified
> a versionable resource at the time of the request, a new version
> history is created and a new version resource is created in the
> new version history.

Since this isn't the intent in 7.7, there needs to be explicit
language stating that, when a version resource is specified in the
request body, a new version history resource is NOT created. A new
definition of the (DAV:put-under-version-control) postcondition is
also needed in this case.

3) Child workspaces of workspaces?

Is it possible for a workspace to be contained by another workspace?
The specification is silent on this issue, though the definition
of workspaces as collections suggests that yes, a workspace can
contain a child workspace.

4) Are workspaces versionable?

Is it possible to place a workspace under version control using the
VERSION-CONTROL method?  The specification is silent on this topic.

Minor nits:

Section 7.1:

> The workspace option introduces the following REQUIRED
> properties for a workspace.

But there is only one property (singular) introduced.

The same comment applies to Section 7.2

Section 7.2.1:

> If the resource is associated with a workspace, this
> property MUST identifies this workspace.

identifies --> identify

Hmm, it stretches credulity that 7+ people could have carefully reviewed
this option and not caught at least these nits, if not the other issues.

- Jim
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 03:03:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:40 GMT