Re: Reading version of draft Functional requirements for basic versioning

David,

I'm not sure if this has been discussed on the group before as I only joined
last week, but do you think we need to add an awareness capability to the
protocol? Specifically, I'm thinking of adding something into section 4 along
the lines of:

18. A way for a client to request identification of another client which
has either requested exclusive access to a version of a resource (lock) or which
has declared an intention to modify a resource (reserve).

The idea is that in a colloborative environment one user would be able to see in
some way who else was working on the same resource as him/herself.

I also include the following spelling corrections as some of these won't be
picked up by a spell checker:

In section 2:

> <H2>2. Rationale</H2>

> <ol>
> <LI>It provides infrastructure for efficient and controlled
> management of large evolving web sites.
> <br><br>Modern configuration management systems are built on some form of
> repository that can track the revision history of individual resources, and
> provide the higher-levelools to manage those saved versions. Basic
                     ^^^^^^^^^ add " t"

> versions. Many also provide merge support to ease the revers operation.</LI>
                                                        ^^^^^^ add "e"

In section 3:
> <H2>3. Global requirements</H2>
> 
> <P>This section covers the overarching contraints that must
                                         ^^^^ add "s"

In section 4:
> <H2>4. Functional requirements</H2>

> <p>The following functional reqirements are intended to satisfy the global
                              ^^^^ add "u"

> <li><EM>Some way to determine a version identification and a resource
> identification for a versioned resource, given its URL</EM>
> <br>
> This requirement describe the ability to take the URL of a version of a
                   ^^^^^^^^ add "s"

> resource and determine:
> <ul>
> <li>a URL for the resource</li>
> <li>a version identifier for the resource.</li>
> </ul>
> Note that this kind of facility supports only some comparison operations: It
> enables the determination that two version-containing URLs designate
> versions of the same resource.  However, given the phenomenon of URL
> aliasing, it is insufficient to determine that they are <EM>not</EM>
> versions of the same resource.
> <br><br>
> This is sort of a minimal "browsing
> through time" requirement.  Tthis requirement allows a browser to tell that a
                              ^^^^^ remove "t"

That's all ...

Paul.

[]EMAIL: paul@comp.lancs.ac.uk [] Post: CSEG Research Centre,  []
[]Phone: +44 1524 65201        []       Computing Department,  []
[]       extension 3262        []       Lancaster University,  []
[]Fax  : +44 1524 593608       []       Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK.[]
[]  WWW: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/paul/     []

Received on Thursday, 12 September 1996 05:43:54 UTC