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

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

From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 22:59:01 -0800
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010107225901.T17220@lyra.org>
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 10:00:15PM -0800, Mark A. Hale wrote:
> >    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.

I got lost in that paragraph. Could you restate what your current issue is?
The above paragraph seems to make general statements about this/that, but I
can't figure out what the concrete problem with the current draft is.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 01:59:45 UTC

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