Re: Configurations: A Compromise Propos
jamsden@us.ibm.com
Mon, 10 May 1999 07:12:53 -0400
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <8525676D.003DF9E6.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 07:12:53 -0400
Subject: RE: Configurations: A Compromise Propos
Jeff says:
>>
I am *not* saying that the original names *must* be used. I am arguing
for retaining the information in some way. I would be happy with a
property for example, called "roots" which maps original member name to
VRid. I don't know if this is the best approach but it gives the flavour
of what I'm after.
<<
But if we do this, then a configuration really maps human URLs to revisions, the
exact thing we want to accomplish with workspaces. I think we're getting hung up
on trying to mix something well defined, workspaces and revision selection, with
something that isn't well defined, mapping URLs in a web server. Its hard to be
precise in this context. Perhaps there is a compromise. Say a configuration
mapped human URLs to revisions, that is, they retain the complete state
including the namespace as Jeff wants. Now servers are free to setup URL
mappings that do something different in server-dependent ways. Can we have
configurations maintain the complete state, and allow server flexibility too?