RE: Various comments...

Adding a word or two here or there is fine.  Deleting stuff is fine.
Adding a whole new term or sentence is harder.  Errors will be corrected
no matter how much rework is required, but at the moment I'm
resisting any purely editorial changes that would cause pagination
spillover.  If we redefine VCB's to be bindings to version histories,
it would no longer be the case that the bindings in VCR's are VCB's,
but rather that they define VCB's.  There's just one place in section
14 that would need to be adjusted because of this (since we don't use
the term VCB much), so that should be OK.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Raymond [mailto:Peter.Raymond@merant.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 10:34 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff; ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: RE: Various comments...


Hi, 
One of the problems is that Section 10 does not define the term 
"Version-Controlled Collection". 
How about in section 10 defining the term "Version-Controlled Collection" 
then we can explicitly say that a VCC has bindings to VCRs and a Collection 
Version has version-controlled bindings to VHRs (using the text you
suggested). 
Would this also cause re-pagination? 
I am worried that if we define the term version-controlled binding to be 
bindings to VHRs then it will become unclear if the VCC itself has bindings 
to VHRs or VCRs. 
Either way, the changes you have suggested are definitely an improvement. 
P.S.  I will see what I can do about getting the powerpoint slides on a 
public web server and let you know the URL. 


-----Original Message----- 
From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@rational.com] 

How about: 
   A "collection version resource", or simply "collection version", 
   captures the content, dead properties, and version-controlled 
   bindings of a version-controlled collection (see Section 14).  A 
   version-controlled binding is a binding to the version history 
   of a version-controlled resource..... 
There is one sentence in section 14 I will also have to adjust, but 
I think defining a "version-controlled binding" as a binding to a 
version history would then make things clearer.  What do you think? 
(Also, this has the benefit of not requiring repagination :-). 
Cheers, 
Geoff

Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 10:52:55 UTC