Re: Discussion Topic: Simple Version Selection and Checkout

Sankar Virdhagriswaran (
Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:01:43 -0500

Message-ID: <008d01be4bed$a2a4e340$794006d1@honey-bee>
From: "Sankar Virdhagriswaran" <>
To: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <>
Cc: <>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:01:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Discussion Topic: Simple Version Selection and Checkout

>If you only have a versioned-resource appearing in only one URL in a
>workspace, then putting a label on the revision you want to see in
>that workspace is a very light-weight, flexible, and interoperable way
>of saying so.  Or is there something about labels that concerns you?

While labels are considered to be light-weight mechanisms in software
development community, it is not considered to be so with many web site
development groups I have talked to. This is because consistent naming of
lables require some administrative overhead (an administrator for instance)
that many of these groups don't have.

I was only saying that the protocol should not prevent an implementation
wherein revision selection may be done manually without automatic version
selection rules.

>So bottom line: Does anyone object to saying that you need to pass in
>different "Workspace" headers if you want to update different revisions
>of a single versioned resource?

As I have said earlier, I don't have a problem with this. Workspaces provide
contexts for update operations and hence need to be passed in the headers in
order for the contexts to be identified.