- From: Boris Bokowski/OTT/OTI <Boris_Bokowski@oti.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:50:55 -0500
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> I'd never recommend to any client to stop using ETags for this purpose! > Sounds dangerous. The client always ought to rely on the ETag to see > if things have changed. Require clients to use ETag for what it was > designed, and further, require clients to be able to deal with re-use > of version URLs. It's good medicine. > > Now, my second line of defense for this is usability. Assuming somebody > will want to put version links as URLs in web pages, or in emails, then > it would be more usable to at least be able to construct short, possibly > meaningful version URLs. The use of a GUID will preclude this. > > FWIW, here's what a Xythos Version URL for a real file looks like: > http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/advanced-status-reporting.htm?version=1 To me, this looks like a good example where in practice, a URL is all you can send to me. It's just not practical to send me the ETag as well, because there is no easy way for me to check it. I think I would prefer clicking on a URL such as http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/advanced-status-reporting.htm/00741ab6a2c400141e860000c0a80cc2 or http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/advanced-status-reporting.htm?version=1&etag=1fe4-69-39e7056c over checking the ETag myself. With reusable version URLs, users would need to know about ETags. Example: If you accidentally deleted advanced-status-reporting.htm and then re-created it, a URL which just says ?version=1 would link to the latest version of that document instead of the first version. -Boris.
Received on Wednesday, 13 December 2000 11:55:23 UTC