Re: Terms

> 1.  Can section 1.4 Notational Convention be placed
> before Terms? This would eliminate some forward
> references, thus making the document easier to read.

Really, I don't recall any notational conventions used in terms (besides
the occasional MUST or MUST NOT<g>).

> 2. Can the following sentence be added just after the
> first sentence in section 1.3?
> "Note that RFC 2518 uses terms from RFC 2068 which
> is superseded by RFC 2616."
> This would make it easier for someone who starts
> with this document (RFC 2518).
> He or she would know immediately that RFC 2068 can
> be ignored.

I agree.

> 3. The difference between "Version-Controlled Resource"
> and "Working Resource" is not clear.
> In some sense, they are both working resources.
> The only difference is that "Working Resources" disappear
> after check-in and "Version-Controlled Resources" do not.

I'd say that was quite a significant difference.

> Confusingly,  workspaces contain version-controlled
> resources and normally not working resources.

Confusing by the semantics or the name ('work...').

> Can we change "Working Resource" to something like
> "Client-Managed Resource" or "Client-Workspace Resource".
> After all, the main difference is that "Working Resources"
> are there to support client managed workspaces. In any
> event, a bit more description would help.  How would
> the following be?

I think Mark made the case quite clearly that such a distinction is
unwarranted as they imply a particular use case that the protocol is not
restricted to support.

> Client-workspace Resource
>
> A "client-workspace resource" is a modifiable copy of
> a version resource used to support client managed
> workspaces.  It is similar to a versioned-controlled
> resource, except that it is transient.  It is created
> by a check-out request against a version resource and
> it is normally deleted by a check-in request.

See answer above.

> 4. The definitions of activity resource, variant resource,
> and variant-controlled resource are not clear.  I
> discussions with Geoff and Jim the line was that an
> activity represents both a branch and a change set.
> That functionally they are the same.  A variant seems
> to also represent a branch, or at least the end of one.
> Actually, it seem set of branches is a better description.
> The division does not seem very clear to us.  Can
> someone enlighten me?

Not sure how to enlighten you other than recommending a re-read of RFC2616
variants which is what it took for me to 'get it'.  I'm sure others can
give more constructive suggestions.

Regards,
Tim

Received on Friday, 2 February 2001 07:18:48 UTC