- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 00:15:24 PDT
- To: dgd@cs.bu.edu
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I would like to see 'browser' changed to 'client' everywhere in the document. This is because 'versioning' is useful for authors who are interacting with remote repositories even if they're not using a 'browser'. I think also that most (if not all) of the instances of 'user agent' could also be 'client'. While all 'user agents' are clients, the converse is not true: some clients, and clients of version-enabled repositories in particular, might not be 'user agents' but other applications. There are places where you say 'versioning-aware', but I think that 'aware' is not strong enough. For interoperability to be useful, the participants need to actually support versioning, and not just be 'aware' of it. I think the word 'Style' in 'Style-free Versioning' is confusing; we're not talking about style sheets. And in some ways, it is impossible to be 'free' of style. Mainly what you want is 'Support for many different versioning paradigms'. It would be useful to elaborate more fully on what those different paradigms might be, or at least give references. In 'Legacy Resource Support', it is misleading to call 'non-versioning' servers 'legacy', since we might expect many future repositories to not support versioning. It's not 'legacy' in that you don't expect them to be obsolete. Perhaps you mean 'Interoperability with non-versioning systems' or some such. When you talk about 'named versions', it would be useful to explain that a version 'name' is often a number. What does 'Some versions of a resource are special.' mean? I would suggest _not_ prejudicing the design choice by avoiding capitalizing LOCK, UNLOCK, NOPS, RESERVE, UNRESERVE, etc. etc. which makes it seem like you want a new HTTP operation for each conceptual operation. Regards, Larry
Received on Thursday, 12 September 1996 03:16:50 UTC