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

RE: Various comments...

From: Peter Raymond <Peter.Raymond@merant.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:33:51 +0100
Message-ID: <20CF1CE11441D411919C0008C7C5A13B02968F32@stalmail.eu.merant.com>
To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Hi,

One of the problems is that Section 10 does not define the term
"Version-Controlled Collection".

How about in section 10 defining the term "Version-Controlled Collection" 
then we can explicitly say that a VCC has bindings to VCRs and a Collection 
Version has version-controlled bindings to VHRs (using the text you
suggested).

Would this also cause re-pagination?

I am worried that if we define the term version-controlled binding to be
bindings to VHRs then it will become unclear if the VCC itself has bindings
to VHRs or VCRs.

Either way, the changes you have suggested are definitely an improvement.

P.S.  I will see what I can do about getting the powerpoint slides on a 
public web server and let you know the URL.

Regards,
--
Peter Raymond - MERANT
Technical Architect (PVCS)
Tel: +44 (0)1727 813362
Fax: +44 (0)1727 869804
mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com
WWW: http://www.merant.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@rational.com]
Sent: 14 September 2001 14:56
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: Various comments...


   From: Peter Raymond [mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com]

   It takes some time to understand section 14, it would have helped
   if the diagram was complete and showed that /x is a Version
   Controlled Collection, and that V2 of VH14 is a Collection Version.

That is probably something that would be hard to do in the final
editorial pass (the pagination would have to be changed since there
is no good place to squeeze that info into the existing diagram).
Since this is explicitly stated in the text describing the 
diagram, I think I'd prefer leaving it the way it is (ASCII art
only lets you do so much before it overloads).

   The current text of 10.2 says: 

   Collection Version Resource 

   A "collection version resource", or simply "collection version", 
   captures the content, dead properties, and version-controlled 
   bindings of a version-controlled collection (see Section 14).  A 
   version-controlled binding is a binding to a version-controlled 
   resource..... 

   I propose we make this clearer and say: 

   Collection Version Resource 

     A "collection version resource", or simply "collection version", 
   captures the content, dead properties, and bindings to the 
   Version History Resources identified in the the version-controlled 
   bindings of a version-controlled collection (see Section 14).  A 
   version-controlled binding is a binding to a version-controlled 
   resource. A binding of a collection version is a binding to a 
   version history resource. 

The word "captures" was intended to be the flag that this was a "fuzzy"
definition, that will be firmed up in the referenced section (section 14).
But I agree we could make this clearer.  How about:

   A "collection version resource", or simply "collection version", 
   captures the content, dead properties, and version-controlled 
   bindings of a version-controlled collection (see Section 14).  A 
   version-controlled binding is a binding to the version history
   of a version-controlled resource..... 

There is one sentence in section 14 I will also have to adjust, but
I think defining a "version-controlled binding" as a binding to a
version history would then make things clearer.  What do you think?
(Also, this has the benefit of not requiring repagination :-).

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 10:35:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:42 GMT