Re: Revision identifier and revisions label namespaces
Geoffrey M. Clemm (gclemm@tantalum.atria.com)
Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:19:59 -0400
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:19:59 -0400
Message-Id: <9910051819.AA14215@tantalum>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <1999Oct05.132240.1250.1342284@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Subject: Re: Revision identifier and revisions label namespaces
From: Jeff_McAffer@oti.com (Jeff McAffer OTT)
<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.
<gmc/> In the terminology section (probably not the best place to define
semantics :-), revision names are defined to be "a name that can be used
to identify a single revision of a versioned resource".
I propose that we systematically erradicate "revision name" from the
spec. It adds no semantics and is confusing.
</jm>
<gmc/> OK by me. I just did a scan through the document, and I don't
see that we lose much/anything by its removal.
Cheers,
Geoff