- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:31:36 -0500 (EST)
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
From: Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com > - Rename Chapter 6 to Working Resource Option > - Rename Chapter 7 to Workspace Option Just for the record, I do not object, but I am disappointed because I thought that the names invoked use cases that helped illustrate the functionality-- the new names are more 'functional' but I fail to see how they will be used much differently than we had implied. The switch to "working resource" option was to recognize the fact that a servers might want to support parallel development of independent resources without supporting the merge or activity capabilities that would be needed for real "client workspace" functionality. So one random thought this arouses ... we could define a "client-workspace" option that is a package of "working-resource", "activity", "merge", and "baseline". That's a reasonable "high-end" package to standardize around. And if we did have the "workspace" option require "activity", "merge", and "baseline" as well, we'd have two symmetrical packages: the workspace option, and the client-workspace option. Just a thought ... Cheers, Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2001 09:32:31 UTC