Next message: jamsden@us.ibm.com: "Re: renaming "Workspace" header to be the "Target-Selector" header"
Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC01D4D7AC@chef.lex.rational.com>
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
To: "DeltaV (E-mail)" <ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:32:19 -0500
Subject: renaming "Workspace" header to be the "Target-Selector" header
In my recent pass through the protocol, I've been finding it somewhat
confusing to have both a workspace resource and a Workspace header. I'd
like to try switching back to an earlier name, i.e. "Target-Selector" for
this header to see if this makes things less confusing. I'd also like to
change "Revision-Selector" to be "Request-Target-Selector" to emphasize
its relationship to the "Target-Selector" header, and to emphasize that it
only applies to target selection for the request URL.
Another (very minor) advantage to this switch is that it would make it
natural to put a workspace in both headers, so that you can copy from one
working
resource to another. For example, I could say:
COPY /foo
Request-Target-Selector: /workspaces/my_ws
Destination: /foo
Target-Selector: /workspaces/other_ws
Any objections?
Cheers,
Geoff