- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:49:34 -0800
- To: "'Jim Whitehead'" <ejw@ics.uci.edu>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Bingo bango bongo. Yaron PS For those of you who are not versed in the rarified terminology of Gilligan's Island, that means I agree. >-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Whitehead [SMTP:ejw@ics.uci.edu] >Sent: Thursday, February 20, 1997 4:49 PM >To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org >Subject: Re: Versioning terminology > >>If we let our terminology be "version tree" and "member of a version tree", >>the requirements start looking something like this: >> >>4.9.2.1. Referring to a version tree. There should be a way to refer to a >>version tree as a whole. Some queries do not apply only to one member of a >>version tree, but to the version tree as a whole. Furthermore, some >>operations may affect all members of the tree, rather than any specific >>member. In these cases, a way to refer to the whole version tree is >>required. >> >>4.9.2.2. Referring to specific members of a version tree. There should be a >>way to refer to each member of a version tree. This means that each member >>of the tree is itself a resource. This is required for version-specific >>linking, and for non-versioning client support. >> >>And so on . . . >> >>OK? > >OK with me. > >- Jim > >
Received on Thursday, 20 February 1997 21:50:19 UTC