Re: Revision identifier and revisions label namespaces
Geoffrey M. Clemm (gclemm@tantalum.atria.com)
Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:06:38 -0400
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 17:06:38 -0400
Message-Id: <9910062106.AA15087@tantalum>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <gclemm@tantalum.atria.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <85256802.0046C15D.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Revision identifier and revisions label namespaces
Ooops. I sent off the message before finishing it. I just had one
last section to respond to:
<jra> ... The likelihood of collisions occuring
when adding a user label is much smaller than the need to remember and
distinguish label namespaces when accessing the corresponding
revisions. One accesses revisions a lot more often than one labels
them, and the consequences of the collision are minimal. The user
just has to pick another label. </jra>
This is a very good point. It shows up for example when a user asks
the client to fetch revision "23". The client has to ask the user
whether they want the revision labeled "23" or the revision with id
"23" (the resource potentially could even have both, identifying
different revisions).
Overall though, I still think the benefits of keeping the namespaces
disjoint outweigh the costs.
Cheers,
Geoff