Re: Revision identifier and revisions la
Jeff McAffer OTT (Jeff_McAffer@oti.com)
Tue, 05 Oct 1999 13:23:26 -0400
From: Jeff_McAffer@oti.com (Jeff McAffer OTT)
To: gclemm@tantalum.atria.com (Geoffrey M. Clemm),
Message-ID: <1999Oct05.132240.1250.1342284@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 13:23:26 -0400
Subject: RE: Revision identifier and revisions la
> <jm>
> A couple things to note.
> 1) The spec currently does not state this. revision-ids
> are described as
>
> unique amongst the set of other revision-ids on a resource
> but labels are
>
> much more weakly defined.
>
> <gmc/> Labels are also guaranteed to be unique amongst the
> set of other
> labels on a resource (since it is a revision name, and revision names
> are defined to have this property).
<jm>
confused me with the () part. "Revision names" are not defined to have
any particular semantics except for being revision-ids or labels (at
least I could not find it in the spec). Labels and revision-ids are
independently defined to be unique for a given resource. If "revision
name" did have the semantics you suggest, then the id and label
namespaces would coincide and we would have a problem.
I propose that we systematically erradicate "revision name" from the
spec. It adds no semantics and is confusing.
</jm>
Jeff