Re: Why do we need working resource ids ?

From: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI (Tim_Ellison@oti.com)
Date: Tue, May 30 2000

Next message: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI: "RE: Locking a workspace"

Previous message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: Workspaces as versionable resources"
Maybe in reply to: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de: "Why do we need working resource ids ?"
Next in thread: Henry Harbury: "RE: Why do we need working resource ids ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2DCF1E2A.0A20E0FB-ON852568EF.0062BF9F@ott.oti.com>
From: "Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:01:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Why do we need working resource ids ?

   From: "Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI" <Tim_Ellison@oti.com>

   I agree.  Now that we have working resource URLs, let's drop the 
working 
   resource id.

   Did I hear you say revision id as well ?<g>

<geoff>
Well, why not?  If you have a server-generated URL that identifies
a revision, why have a separate server-generated id that identifies
that revision as well?

If a server wishes to automatically generate a short label
(e.g. "1", "2", "2.1") that a user can use in a Target-Selector,
then it can do so, but I see no reason to require it in the
protocol (we can't standardize the form of that id in any case).
</geoff>

<tim/> Agreed, it seemed like a logical inference to me.

Next message: Tim Ellison/OTT/OTI: "RE: Locking a workspace"
Previous message: Geoffrey M. Clemm: "Re: Workspaces as versionable resources"
Maybe in reply to: Edgar@EdgarSchwarz.de: "Why do we need working resource ids ?"
Next in thread: Henry Harbury: "RE: Why do we need working resource ids ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]