Revision names
Tim Ellison OTT (Tim_Ellison@oti.com)
Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:26:17 -0400
From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org (ietf-dav-versioning)
Message-ID: <1999Oct12.102530.1250.1349047@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 10:26:17 -0400
Subject: Revision names
As mentioned by both Jeff (by phone) and Geoff (in an earlier positing),
revision id's must be legal URI path segments if we envisage the ability to
refer to a revision by a URL (i.e. DAV:history's revisions collection "/"
DAV:revision-id).
Maybe we will also want to refer to a particular labelled resource by a URL
in a similar fashion.
If we choose to differentiate labels and revision id's by extra syntax
surrounding the value this would lead to bizzare looking URLs.
Having listened to the discussions, I think that the argument for avoiding
collisions between labels & revision ids has been largely debunked; and the
protocol would undoubtably be simpler if there was not requirement to
separate namespaces. However, labels and revision ids have different
characteristics from the client's perspective and it would be immensely
reassuring to know which you are dealing with at all times. I just don't
see yet how this would fit into the protocol.
Tim