- From: Jim Amsden/Raleigh/IBM <jamsden@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:19:36 -0400
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
(In reply to Lisa's posting...) <jra>Lisa, I appreciate you concern for minimizing the requirements for DMS systems. They play an important role in Web authoring. Perhaps we have a different view of labels though. See if the comments below address your issues.</jra> There is very little to be gained from supporting labeling when there is no concept of a consistent set of revisions, and I argue that this is the case in many simple doc-mgmt systems which support versioning. <jra>Support for labels isn't intended to be used to create and/or manage a consistent set of revisions. Labels in WebDAV aren't "sticky". You can't lock a label on a revision. So you could use a label to name a consistent set of revisions, but you can't be sure you'd always get the same revisions. That's what baselines are for, and this is clearly an advanced concept. Clients might move the label anytime.</jra> Is there a justification for supporting labelling that does not require advanced source-related concepts like "consistent set of revisions", or that cannot be satisfied by using the version's comment or date properties? <jra>Sure. Labels are just a way of distinguishing one revision from another using an identifier that has some meaning to the user making the distinction. So in your example, I find lots of meaning in document revisions labeled as "last call" even though there is no relationship between them(manifest as links or references) that needs to be captured as a consistent set in a baseline. The label just helps identify which version of the document is in the last call state. Its just easier than saying "go look at revision 1AB2795" or some other equally meaningful server generated id. This seems pretty useful, and its pretty simple. Are you thinking that label support implies baseline support, or that there is even a relationship between them? Baselines have nothing to do with labels. They are not related in the protocol. Labels are just added and removed from revisions. The only requirement is that the same label can't be on more than one revision of the same versioned resource at the same time. This, and the ability to use them in a Target-Selector header or SET-TARGET method is about the only thing that distinguishes them from properties.<?jra>
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2000 17:35:11 UTC