Re: URL's for specific revisions

Chris Kaler (ckaler@Exchange.Microsoft.com)
Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:20:05 -0700 

Message-ID: <FD7A762E588AD211A7BC00805FFEA54B041DD936@HYDRANT>
From: "Chris Kaler (Exchange)" <ckaler@Exchange.Microsoft.com>
To: "'jamsden@us.ibm.com'" <jamsden@us.ibm.com>, ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 14:20:05 -0700 
Subject: RE: URL's for specific revisions

Personally, I'd prefer to avoid defining HOW a server must represent
a specific revision.  This should just be a URL that the server provides.

The "cleanliness" that is suggested here can be achieved by having a
server support property collections on the history resource.  But I
don't think that should be a requirement on all servers.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com [mailto:jamsden@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 2:15 PM
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Subject: Re: URL's for specific revisions




Very interesting! I'd like to think about this one a little more though. We
should try it on some scenarios and see how it works. What would it break?





Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT) on 10/05/99 04:37:28 PM

To:   ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
cc:

Subject:  URL's for specific revisions




I propose that we define the URL to a specific revision to be:

revision_URL = history_resource_URL "/" <revision_identifier>

Since history resources are non-versionable resources, the
history_resource_URL is not subject to selection rules.

This means that clients can 'globally' use a revision_URL to refer to a
specific versioned resource revision.

[Since the spec is quiet about where history resources are stored in the
namespace, I offer the following examples assuming that the server chooses
to store history resources as /history/<versioned_resource_id>,
then:
    revision_URL = /history/<versioned_resource_id>/<revision_identifier>]

For example:
          http://foo.com/history/res23/rev42
          http://foo.com/history/res81/rev1

further, if a revision is a collection, then 'slashing though' it would be
allowed, and subject to the regular Target-Selection procedure, for
versioned collections,

for example (assume res23 is a collection)
     http://foo.com/history/res23/rev42/member1/index.html

This would make revisions members of a history resource rather than
properties.

Tim