Next message: Clemm, Geoff: "DAV:current-label"
From: jamsden@us.ibm.com
To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Message-ID: <852568A9.0069D5E4.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 14:15:55 -0500
Subject: Re: renaming "Workspace" header to be the "Target-Selector" header
I like the workspace header whose value is a workspace resource. I never
liked target... because it seemed to confuse the roles of revision
selection and revision selection override. Workspaces select the revision
while the revision-selector provides the override in those cases where it
is necessary. So I guess I vote to leave them as is.
|------------------------+------------------------>
| | "Clemm, Geoff" |
| | <gclemm@rational.com>|
| | Sent by: |
| | ietf-dav-versioning-r|
| | equest@w3.org |
| | |
| | 03/21/2000 01:32 PM |
| | |
|------------------------+------------------------>
>------------------------|
| |
| To: |
| "DeltaV (E-mail)" |
| <ietf-dav-versioning@|
| w3.org> |
| cc: |
| 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