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: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:56:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4B0FE88E.8070605@gmx.de>
To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
CC: Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Forgot to insert:
> 
> What about:
> 
> 
>>> When a resource is put under version control, it becomes a "versioned 
>>> resource". Many servers protect versioned resources from 
>>> modifications by considering them "checked in", and by requiring a 
>>> "checkout" operation before modification, and a "checkin" operation 
>>> to go back to the "checked-in" state. Other servers allow 
>>> modification and perfrom versioning without requiring an explicit 
>>> checkout operation.
>>
>>
>> I feel there should be the notion of 'modification of checked-out 
>> working copy' in there but I don't mean to say that your above wording 
>> isn't suitable also.
>>
>> Jan
 >> ...

Hi Jan,

if I understand you correctly you say that the proposed text explaining 
checkin/checkout should mention that it applies to modifying the working 
copy. I believe that's correct, but would require a forward reference to 
the term "working copy" that I'd like to avoid. (If you meant to say 
something else, please clarify).

With respect to replacing

"Other servers allow modification, in which case the checkout/checkin 
operation may happen implicitly."

by

"Other servers allow modification and perform versioning without 
requiring an explicit checkout operation."

...: this really seems to be equivalent; any particular reason why you 
feel your text is clearer?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 27 November 2009 14:57:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 November 2009 14:57:04 GMT