RE: Core versioning issues and nits

If a resource doesn't have a URL, and can't be queried or seen or used,
is it a resource?  If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to
hear it, does it make a sound?

Existential questions aside, the proposed wording would be acceptable,
but a little confusing.

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Geoffrey M.
> Clemm
> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 5:31 PM
> To: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Core versioning issues and nits
>
>
>
>    From: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>
>    Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:09:49 -0800
>
>
>    ... please modify section 2.4 to read something like:
>
>    "If the request-URL identifies a versionable resource, a
> new version
>    history resource MAY be created."
>
> I agree this needs to be clarified, but I prefer JimW's wording: "In
> core versioning, a version history resource is not assigned a URL, and
> hence is not visible in the http scheme URL space."
>
> This keeps the versioning model more consistent, since logically
> there always is a version history which consists of all the
> versions connected by predecessor relations.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff

Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 17:59:40 UTC