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

RE: II.6, non-reusable version URLs (was: comments on deltav-10.5 from Yaron Goland, Act Two)

From: Boris Bokowski/OTT/OTI <Boris_Bokowski@oti.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:50:55 -0500
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDF3345B0.2C9161C7-ON852569B4.00592E03@ott.oti.com>
> I'd never recommend to any client to stop using ETags for this purpose!
> Sounds dangerous.  The client always ought to rely on the ETag to see
> if things have changed.  Require clients to use ETag for what it was
> designed, and further, require clients to be able to deal with re-use
> of version URLs.  It's good medicine.
> Now, my second line of defense for this is usability.  Assuming somebody
> will want to put version links as URLs in web pages, or in emails, then
> it would be more usable to at least be able to construct short, possibly
> meaningful version URLs.  The use of a GUID will preclude this.
> FWIW, here's what a Xythos Version URL for a real file looks like:
> http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/advanced-status-reporting.htm?version=1

To me, this looks like a good example where in practice, a URL is all you 
can send to me. It's just not practical to send me the ETag as well, 
because there is no easy way for me to check it. I think I would prefer 
clicking on a URL such as
over checking the ETag myself.

With reusable version URLs, users would need to know about ETags. Example: 
If you accidentally deleted advanced-status-reporting.htm and then re-created it, a URL which just 
says ?version=1 would link to the latest version of that document instead 
of the first version.

Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2000 11:55:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:46 UTC