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

On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:06 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Jan Algermissen wrote:
>>> Does it?
>>>
>>> "A "working copy" is a resource at a server-defined URL that can  
>>> be modified to create a new version of a versioned resource."
>>>
>> So it might be enough to:
>> PUT /working-copies/667
>> <foo/>
>> to create a new version of /main/667 ?? (assuming that /main/667 -- 
>> working-copy--> /working-copies/667)
>> What would be the reason to have a working copy that needs not be  
>> checked-in?
>
> That's not what I intended to say; I was just pointing out that the  
> current definition in the spec does not refer to checkin/checkout  
> (maybe it should?).

Hmm, I think so. The definition in a sense implies that the version is  
created as a result of the modification. Which is IMHO *never* the  
case for working copies.

Surely the draft must define 'working copy'. What is the nature of a  
working copy? What is its true nature? I think: being *used* for  
creating new versions. So, what about:

>>> "A "working copy" is a resource at a server-defined URL that can  
>>> be *used* to create a new version of a versioned resource."

and remove checkout/checkin completely. ('use' instead of 'modify'  
sounds less like "The modification cause the versioning" (which it  
never does by nature of a working copy (IMHO - s.a.))

If the draft wanted to define it, then it woud be something like:

checkout: an operation on a resource that creates a working copy
checkin: an operation on a working copy that creates a new version of  
its corresponding versioned resource.

Jan



>
> BR, Julian

--------------------------------------
Jan Algermissen

Mail: [email protected]
Blog: http://algermissen.blogspot.com/
Home: http://www.jalgermissen.com
--------------------------------------