> If we look at "minor edit" and "UMO linking" as at 2 completely > independent events that may happen during editing process, I'm totaly OK > with that. > However those events may happen in any order, linking may be done after > publishing. It means that 2 versions of U will be created - U-4 after > publishing based on U-3 and U-5 after linking based on U-4. > This will certainly keep things easier for us, but, on the other hand, > from UU point of view it's better to force Author to complete all his > changes in only one version - UU-4. And I don't see any user-friendly way > to force Authors to do that except some ugly alert on "Publish" event:"Did > you finish your linking for this object?". > By the way, what if Author wants to link to U-3 not just C, but several > others? Create multiple versions for each assignment? Maybe multiple > assignments that I suggested will help here? > Anyways, maybe creating new version after each change is not such a good > idea? > In addition to the above. If we implement new link creation policy as it's defined right now, it means that a course that "contain several child UMOs" and "that was build from the scratch by it's original Author" will always have version higher than 1. So, for example, when you create a Topic T from the scratch which has 5 subTopics, 10 Tests and 15 Problems, T version will be at least T-30 after it's original creation.
Authoright © Total Knowledge: 2001-2008