Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: DAV:revisions property for a workspace resource"
From: "Jim Doubek" <jdoubek@macromedia.com>
To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>, <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:21:32 -0700
Message-ID: <NEBBKGCJHMKNLDINHHCEAEHFCAAA.jdoubek@macromedia.com>
Subject: RE: DAV:revisions property for a workspace resource
Hi,
After reading the _04.2 spec and following this list for a while, I have a
couple of questions.
According to this thread, workspaces ought not be collections, nor are
activities. It seems the only place the spec requires binding as opposed to
containment is in versionable collections. It seems to me that all other
semantics and namespace navigation can be handled without the binding
extensions, or am I missing something? Is there another reason for requiring
the Bind extension, beyond the greater flexibility it gives? It seems to be
orthogonal to this spec except for versioned collections.
Second, why should a workspace not give a binding name to its set of working
resources and selected revisions?
- jim
------------------------------------------
Jim Doubek
eBusiness Solutions, Macromedia, Inc.
jdoubek@macromedia.com
http://www.macromedia.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M.
> Clemm
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 8:36 AM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: DAV:revisions property for a workspace resource
>
>
>
> From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
>
> Maybe a workspace should just be a collection? Note that if we do
> this, and have workspace revisions play the role of
> configurations/baselines, then you wouldn't be able to have
> configurations/workspace without versioned collections unless the
> server did special cases for workspaces.
>
> I guess we could do that if we *really* wanted to confuse people (:-).
>
> It really does seem that a
> workspace is a container of references to revisions and working
> resources. This sure sounds like members of a collection, not
> properties of a resource.
>
> A collection gives a binding name (a URL segment) to members of a
> single set. A workspace has two sets of objects, one of which it
> contains (working resources) and one of which it just refers to
> (revisions), and it does not associate a binding name with members of
> either of these sets. Doesn't sound like a good fit to me.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
>
>