W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: comments on deltav-10.5 from Yaron Goland, Act Two

From: <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:11:27 +0000
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <802569B3.007F7701.00@d06mta07.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>


The term "version URL" simply means a URL that identifies a version.  In
your example I'm not sure what you mean by "relative URL".

Servers may support deleting individual versions (as well as the entire
versioned resource).  It would be undesirable for servers to reuse version
URLs since they represent a 'stable' reference to a particular state of the
resource, and may be used as such by other persistent resources.  Clearly
if the server reuses a URL that would be a bad thing in such circumstances.

Tim


"Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> on 2000-12-12 08:56:57 PM

Please respond to "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>

To:   "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>,
      ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
cc:
Subject:  RE: comments on deltav-10.5 from Yaron Goland, Act Two




Can somebody clarify what this would mean:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org On Behalf Of Geoffrey M.
> Clemm
> Subject: comments on deltav-10.5 from Yaron Goland, Act Two
>
> These are the comments that I think may be more controversial.
> ...
> (II.6) Require that a version URL never be re-used after a version is
>        deleted.

Whether or not I agree with this, I find the phrase "version URL" to be
ambiguous enough that I'm not certain what this comment is supposed to
mean,
so I'll start with an example:
 - foo.doc is created
 - foo.doc is made versioned and "foo.doc.__v1__" is defined as the
relative
version URL
 - All of foo.doc is deleted
 - foo.doc is created
 - foo.doc is made versioned, NOW, according to this suggestion, the
current
version CANNOT be called foo.doc.__v1__ therefore is called foo.doc.__v2__

Is that the intent?  if so, I'd have to disagree with this; although it
might be desirable for a server to avoid ever having a version URL re-used,
it ought not to be part of the standard.  I don't actually think it's
relative to the standard, although it may be very relative to good server
design.

lisa
Received on Tuesday, 12 December 2000 18:13:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:39 GMT