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: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:13:27 +0100
Cc: Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-id: <45595B95-70A0-44BB-A5B5-9B0E64B31F20@mac.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Julian,

On Nov 27, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> 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.

What I tried to say is that the notion of working-copy goes hand in  
hand with the notion of checking out. Or, to view it from a different  
angle: when a server is versioning, it can do so either implicitly (on  
its own) upon a modification of the resource that is being versioned  
by the server or it can require the user to do it explicitly by  
cheking out->working copy->update working copy->check-in. Without a  
notion of check-in the working-copy notion is useless because it will  
never lead to a new version.


> 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).
>

I think the notion of versioning is orthogonal to the notion of  
checkout/checkin and the draft seems to be centered around it. If a  
resource is being versioned by the server, all relations make sense,  
except working-copy. Only for working-copy you need to introduce  
checkin/checkout. It is just another means putting the versioning  
'action' in the hands of the client.

(But please takte this only as input - the draft just triggered an  
analysis process and that keeps going :-)
I cannot judge if it is significant enough to justify work on the  
draft or even this exchange...


> 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?
>

The latter IMHO takes the focus away from checkin/checkout which I see  
as an absolute edge-case (being non DAV and
non CMIS biased :-)

But then....word smithing I guess.

Jan


> Best regards, Julian
>
>
>
>
>

--------------------------------------
Jan Algermissen

Mail: algermissen@acm.org
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 27 November 2009 17:14:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 November 2009 17:14:46 GMT