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

Re: re-use of version URL's

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:03:13 -0800
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010104170312.E17220@lyra.org>
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 04:06:27PM -0800, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I think I agree with Mark and will try to clarify for him...

Then I'm unclear on your logic. You seem to be agreeing with Geoff about
what needs to be human readable or not.

> > In particular, you have a cheap way of guaranteeing unique version
> > url's by tacking a uuid to the end of the implementation name of
> > the object in your store.  This gives you a stable name for a version.
> > In addition, you have human meaningful names for versions, by
> > combining version-controlled resource URL's with version names and
> > labels.  So it looks the protocol gives you both stable names for
> > versions and human meaningful names for versions.
> 
> Yes, you get stable URLs (names) for versions.
> Yes, you get human meaningful names, but only really for
> version-controlled resources.
> 
> The phrase "human meaningful" is probably where the disconnect is.  If
> you consider the following human-meaningful, then you're right.  But I
> suspect Mark doesn't consider the following particularly usable.
> 
> http://www.server.com/version-space/path/filename.ext/version2/UUID10938
> 478691283

I would think the above URL is a version resource URL, so it doesn't need to
be human readable.

Something like:

    http://www.server.com/version-space/path/filename.ext
    
would be the version-controlled resource, and is definitely human-readable.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 20:04:23 GMT

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