Re: Revision names
Geoffrey M. Clemm (geoffrey.clemm@rational.com)
Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:08:26 -0400
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:08:26 -0400
Message-Id: <9910241208.AA24220@tantalum>
From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <1999Oct12.102530.1250.1349047@otismtp.ott.oti.com>
Subject: Re: Revision names
From: Tim_Ellison@oti.com (Tim Ellison OTT)
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.
In the protocol, there currently are two separate collections associated
with a versioned resource: the revisions collection and the
labeled-revisions collection. The first contains resources named by
their revision-id and the second contains resources named by their labels.
This is actually quite natural, since it lets you say things like
"the revisions collection is maintained by the server, while the
labeled-revisions collection is maintained by the client".
So you can have separate namespaces without bizarre looking URL's.
Cheers,
Geoff