- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:45:57 -0500 (EST)
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
I just finished an editing pass over the protocol, and the only time we used the term "version-controlled" was in reference to resources that had already had the VERSION-CONTROL operation applied to them, so current usage in the protocol is consistent with replacing the term "version selector" with "version-controlled resource". I've never encountered the need to have a term for "any kind of resource managed by DeltaV", so I don't think we need one (and even if we did, I don't think we'd want to use "version-controlled for that concept). I'll post the results of this editing pass as a 10.7 working draft, so folks can see what this really would look like. Cheers, Geoff Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:18:27 -0800 From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> Seems fine... but don't we already use "version controlled resource" to refer to any of the resources managed by DeltaV? (hrm; maybe not ; do we need/want one?) Cheers, -g On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 12:57:46PM -0500, Geoffrey M. Clemm wrote: > > At a recent deltav presentation I was giving, someone suggested > that "version selector" was not a very good term, since a checked > out version selector doesn't really select a version. I believe > this is a very good point, and would like to consider selecting > a less misleading term. > > My favorite would be "version controlled resource", which we > could shorten to just "controlled resource" in contexts where > it is unambiguous. > > We can then say that the VERSION-CONTROL request creates a > version controlled resource at the request URL. It also then > is very natural to refer to a checked-in version controlled > resource and a checked-out version controlled resource. > > I'm going to make a pass through the document to see how > this works out in practice, and then if this goes smoothly, > I'd like to post it for general comment. Any objections? > > Cheers, > Geoff -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Monday, 4 December 2000 14:46:40 UTC