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: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:56:57 +0100
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-id: <915EE8BF-3B46-46AD-AD65-2A0B79144081@mac.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Nov 30, 2009, at 1:02 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Jan Algermissen wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2009, at 6:19 AM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
>>> Note that versioning servers without working copies often still  
>>> require a checkout/checkin protocol.
>>> The "checkout" method is used as a notification to other users  
>>> that this client is working on that resource.
>>> The "checkin" method is used to tell the server "I want you to  
>>> create a new version with the current content" (while a PUT just  
>>> updates the current content without creating a new version).
>> In this case, checkout/checkin is also orthogonal to the notion of  
>> versioning and would not need to be mentioned in the spec. IOW, the  
>> only reason mentioning checkin/checkout in the spec is because the  
>> definition of working copy depends on it.
>> ...
> Does it?
> "A "working copy" is a resource at a server-defined URL that can be  
> modified to create a new version of a versioned resource."

So it might be enough to:

PUT /working-copies/667


to create a new version of /main/667 ?? (assuming that /main/667 -- 
working-copy--> /working-copies/667)

What would be the reason to have a working copy that needs not be  


> Best regards, Julian

Jan Algermissen

Mail: algermissen@acm.org
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 12:57:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:38 UTC