W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Comments on Action:draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-03

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:09:46 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>, "Atom-syntax Syntax'" <atom-syntax@imc.org>, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF32512A8F.3D6DB90D-ON8525767A.0058453F-8525767A.0058C880@us.ibm.com>
Yes, once one goes to more advanced features (like branches and tags), it 
becomes harder to find or agree on common link types.
Note that RFC-3253 defines a full versioning protocol, including branches 
(called "activities") and tags (called "baselines).

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian Reschke wrote on 11/26/2009 10:58:37 AM:
> Sam Johnston wrote:
>  ...
> > I also wonder whether it makes sense to offer links to "native" 
revision 
> > control (e.g. hg, git, svn, etc.) and/or web interfaces to them - and 
> > then specifics like branches and tags, and what a URI/URL to a 
> > branch/tag would even look like.
> 
> That's an interesting thought, but appears to be a much more complex 
> problem that the one we wanted to solve here.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> 
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:10:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 November 2009 16:10:26 GMT