W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: Jim Whitehead's Hong Kong talk - Adding versioning to the web

From: Tim Ellison <Tim_Ellison@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 14:39:05 +0100
To: DeltaV <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFFC493C36.981ABE89-ON80256A78.004A88EA@portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>

When a VERSION-CONTROL contains a DAV:version element, the href must refer
to a version.
The method precondition is "DAV:must-be-version".

I haven't had the benefit of reading Jim W's slides -- but surely it
doesn't take 52+ slides to describe DeltaV <G>

Tim

Alan Kent <ajk@mds.rmit.edu.au> wrote:
> Slide 50 of Jim Whitehead's WWW 10 talk "Delta V: Adding
> versioning to the web" has an example of creating a
> workspace using MKWORKSPACE and then populating it using
> VERSION-CONTROL commands. (These slides are great stuff
> by the way. It makes it much easier to get an overall
> feel for things.)
>
> The workspace URIs were things like /users/geoff/projectX/.
> The original project file URIs were like /projectX/makefile.
> The VERSION-CONTROL command then created /users/geoff/projectX/makefile
> from /projectX/makefile.
>
> My reading of the DeltaV spec in Section 6.7 indicates that
> VERSION-CONTROL is creating a
>
>     "new version-controlled resource for an existing version
> history".
>
> The examples the spec has then uses URIs like /his/12/ver/V3
> identifying a version from a history. Jim's example in his
> slide is a version controlled resource (slide 52).
>
> Should the above text in the first paragraph of section 6.7
> of the spec be expanded to make it clear that the URI
> identifies a version from the version history? Or can any
> sort of resource be identified (version controlled, version,
> version history, etc) as long as the version history can
> somehow be identified? Or is the spec OK and the example
> in the slides is wrong.
>
> Maybe the slides are a bit hand-wavy to get concepts across
> more easily... The spec seems to state quite clearly that
> a version URI should be supplied (it makes no comment about
> using a version-controlled resource URI - unless its mentioned
> somewhere else I have not found!).
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2001 09:40:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 13:57:41 GMT