Next message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: Stable URLs"
Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC026CBCDF@chef.lex.rational.com>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
To: "DeltaV (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 17:52:42 -0400
Subject: RE: Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 4/3/00 (Monday) 2-3pmEST
<Minutes>
We spent most of the time discussing topic 3, i.e. should stable URL's
be in basic or advanced versioning. JimW made the point that the ability
to have a URL to a particular revision was a core capability, and that
currently stable URL's are the only mechanism we have to provide this
functionality to versioning unaware clients.
Although it was generally agreed that this was an important capability,
the concern was that maintaining a stable URL space could be difficult
enough to provide a barrier to easy implementation of the core versioning
protocol.
JimW made the additional point that he does not feel that the stability
of the URL (i.e. it being unchangeable) was not what was required, e.g.
if you moved the versioned resource, it would be fine for the revision URL's
to no longer work.
So it looks like we have two different issues: what resources have stable
URL's,
and are there (potentially unstable) URL's that give a downlevel client
access
to an arbitrary revision.
</Minutes>
-----Original Message-----
From: Clemm, Geoff [mailto:gclemm@Rational.Com]
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 11:39 PM
To: DeltaV (E-mail)
Subject: Versioning TeleConf Agenda, 4/3/00 (Monday) 2-3pmEST
phone: 888 819 8909 pass-code#97985
Agenda:
- If we unify the concepts of a workspace and a
configuration, should the result be called a workspace
or a configuration?
- Is a baseline just a checked in workspace?
- Should "stable URL's" be in basic versioning or
should they be introduced in advanced versioning?
- Questions from Tim's email