W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Comments on Action:draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-03

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:26:51 +0100
Message-ID: <4B0E9E3B.3040900@gmx.de>
To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
CC: Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Jan Algermissen wrote:
> (Sorry if this is confusing matters, but...)
> I am not sure that the notion of a 'versioned resource' is necessary at 
> all. If the draft defined 'version' instead the whole checkin/checkout 
> notion could be dropped.

The reason for making the distinction is that in many systems, versions 
and versionable resources are different things (for instance, in JCR and 

> 'Working Copy' could be defined separately as a resource that is an 
> 'private copy' of a resource, one whose URI is not made available to any 
> client except upon initial creation (sorry that this is so imprecise - I 
> hope you get the idea).

The URI of a working copy may not be private at all.

...it's really to hard to come up with terminology that is compatible 
with many different system.

> IWO, the draft somehow circles around the checkin/checkout operations 
> and I am not sure that is necessary.
> (But if this sounds completely insane, just ignore it)

No, I'm listening; and hoping for more feedback...

BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 15:27:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:44 UTC