Re (2): DAV:unreserved - missing precondition?

Alison Macmillan <[email protected]> wrote:
> The second option looks better to me, i.e.
> - disallow the checkin of an unreserved checkout if there is a reserved checkout
> as I think the first condition would need to be:
> - disallow a reserved checkout if there is already an unreserved checkout,
>   and disallow an unreserved checkout if there is already a reserved checkout.
> which restricts parallel development.
Agreed.

> Section 13.3.1 of the spec says:
> 13.3.1 DAV:unreserved
> This property of a checked-out resource indicates whether the 
> DAV:activity-set of another checked-out resource associated with the 
> version history of this version-controlled resource can have an 
> activity that is in the DAV:activity-set property of this checked-out 
> resource.
First I wonder why we think negative. I think it would be more natural
to make an editorial change to DAV:reserved and depreceate DAV:unreserved.
Also here DAV:unreserved is tied to the activity feature. I feel it already
makes sense without activities (Which for me implies that there is a single
implicit default activity).

Cheers, Edgar