W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Comments on Action:draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-03

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:54:42 +0100
Message-ID: <4B0BBB72.1090200@gmx.de>
To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
CC: Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Hi Jan,

first of all thanks for the feedback!

Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Julian,
> 
> some comments on the link relation draft:
>
 > 2. Terminology
> 
> It is not clear to me, what the meaning of 'check out' and 'check in'. 

Yes, we need to add text here. We originally started with the 
definitions with RFC 3253 (WebDAV versioning), but later on decided 
later on to just rely on generic definitions to make this work better 
with CMIS and JCR.

> Also, the text (IMO) creates the impression that versioning can only 
> take place when 'check out' and 'check in' are applied. However, a 
> resource could also be versioned by the server upon any modification 
> made by a client regardless of any 'checking out' or 'checking in'. The 
> link relations specified would still make sense.

Indeed; and that's something that can even happen in WebDAV versioning 
(through the various modes of auto-versioning).

> Assuming that 'checking out' and 'checking in' are operations on 
> resources, I think the draft should address how clients achieve these 
> operations. This would at least involve another link relation and 
> specification how to use the linked resource to perform a checkout.

These kinds of operations are specific to the protocol in which they are 
used, while the link relations are meant to be generic; thus I'd avoid 
to go that way.

For now, I've added this to the issues list: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-issues.html#issue.checked-out>. 
I'll try to make a change proposal soonish.

> Or am I misunderstanding what the draft is trying to do?
> 
> Appendix A
> 
> It should be 'working-copy' instead of 'working-resource'.

Indeed. Thanks for catching this.

> I am glad to see this happening. Covers a lot of stuff that comes up in 
> almost every project. Thanks.

That's good to hear, because defining generic link relations doesn't 
make sense unless there are generic use cases for them :-)

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 24 November 2009 10:55:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 November 2009 10:55:27 GMT