- From: Geoffrey M. Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 16:17:42 -0500 (EST)
- To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
Well, just in case anyone made it to the middle of my last posting (:-), I did have a spurious line that is likely to cause confusion: From: "Geoffrey M. Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@rational.com> From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com> Requirements ------------ ... Human-readable version URLs You bet. The first time read that, I "missed" the "version". So I read it as "Human-readable URLs" which I of course am for. But human-readable URL's are not something I see any need for, with the reasoning below. Human-readable version URLs are desirable. The advantage is that users can visually see whether they are about to navigate to v9, v10, v11, or the base document (latest version). If the version URLs are too complicated or long (e.g. if they contain GUIDs), users will not bother to visually parse the URL to see what version they are looking at. This is not disastrous, but it is a pain: Geoff is likely to get comments on v9 that have been fixed in v10, because the user didn't realize what version they were looking at. You've got human-readable non-version-controlled URL's, and human-readable version-controlled resource URL's. Make one of those whenever you need to make something human meaningful. Why do you need *another* way of doing the same thing? Sorry about that! Cheers, Geoff
Received on Friday, 5 January 2001 16:18:32 UTC