Re: Revision identifier and revisions label namespaces
Geoffrey M. Clemm (gclemm@tantalum.atria.com)
Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:26:58 -0400
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 14:26:58 -0400
Message-Id: <9910051826.AA14228@tantalum>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <85256801.00619618.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Revision identifier and revisions label namespaces
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
<jm>
I propose that we systematically erradicate "revision name" from the
spec. It adds no semantics and is confusing.
</jm>
<jra>
The revision names for a revision are unique. There are two kinds of
revision names, server supplied (revision id) and user supplied
(revision label). The implicatation is that they share the same
namespace. The reason for having the revision id is that a revision
must have at least one revision name in order to distinguish it from
any other revision. Since this is required, the server should supply
it. Users can then add others as needed.
</jra>
<gmc/> If we put labels and identifiers in the same namespace, how do
we answer a client that complains that it has to know the server
dependent conventions for generating revision-id's before it can
safely chose a label? What is the server benefit that would lead us
to place such a burden on clients?
Cheers,
Geoff