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

RE: re-use of version URL's (continued)

From: Mark A. Hale <mark.hale@interwoven.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 22:00:15 -0800
To: <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FCEJIPPGHGNPMFLDIMEFEEAICIAA.mark.hale@interwoven.com>
>    There appears to be agreement in the fact that we want URL's to have
>    longevity.  Furthermore, this longevity applies to what I want
> to classify
>    as resources that can be baselined.  (Since I am new to
> WebDAV, I hope that
>    I am not opening up a can of worms by using the term
> 'baseline'.  In the
>    context here, it is a resource that is stable and has longevity).
>
> To avoid confusion, let's call them "stable resources" rather than
> "baselineable resources".

ok - will do.

>    There are implementation possibilities where version URL's can be
>    reused. (I am not trying to judge the quality of the
>    implementations and the impact on either client of server
>    functionality.  Merely an acknowledgement that these
>    implementations are feasible.) The example I posted earlier was
>    centered on the concept of a temporary space.
>
>    I propose that we instead use something to the effect 'MUST NOT re-use
>    version-controlled resource URL's for resources which can be
> baselined'.
>
> As Greg pointed out, I think you meant "version URL", not
> "version-controlled resource URL" here.  This doesn't get us anywhere
> because the fact that a URL is a version URL (i.e. appears
> in a DAV:version or DAV:checked-out, etc. properties) is exactly
> the way that a client determines whether or not the URL
> is stable, so this is basically telling a client that
> "a version URL is stable unless it isn't".  Not very useful (:-).

You are correct I meant version URL.

I guess that I keep going back to the point that there may be occasions
where 'non-stable' URL's are used.  These include:

	- Reusable temporary version URL's
	- Mutability concerns

Even in a stable URL, we may even have mutability concerns as being
discussed in the current threads. You reference that the above suggestion is
not very useful, and the point is that it is not useful unless you have a
stable version URL and systems may have others.  Please understand that I
can appreciate the desire to have 'stable' version URL's from a long-lived
client cache perspective.

	Thanks,

	Mark
Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 00:57:25 GMT

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