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

Re: Core versioning scenario and mutability

From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:17:42 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200101052117.QAA00226@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org

Well, just in case anyone made it to the middle of my last posting (:-),
I did have a spurious line that is likely to cause confusion:

   From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>

      From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>

      Requirements
      ------------
      ...

      Human-readable version URLs

   You bet.

The first time read that, I "missed" the "version".  So I read it as
"Human-readable URLs"  which I of course am for.  But human-readable
URL's are not something I see any need for, with the reasoning below.

      Human-readable version URLs are desirable.  The advantage is that users
      can visually see whether they are about to navigate to v9, v10, v11, or
      the base document (latest version).  If the version URLs are too
      complicated or long (e.g. if they contain GUIDs), users will not bother
      to visually parse the URL to see what version they are looking at.  This
      is not disastrous, but it is a pain: Geoff is likely to get comments on
      v9 that have been fixed in v10, because the user didn't realize what
      version they were looking at.

   You've got human-readable non-version-controlled URL's,
   and human-readable version-controlled resource URL's.
   Make one of those whenever you need to make something human
   meaningful.  Why do you need *another* way of doing the same
   thing?

Sorry about that!

Cheers,
Geoff
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 16:18:32 GMT

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