- From: John Stracke <francis@ecal.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:07:24 +0000
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Larry Masinter wrote: > > Larry: Is the following statement true? > > > > If we defined a collection that contains all revisions of a versioned > > resource, where a member of that collection is named by its > > revision-id, then it would be within these guidelines (i.e. it would > > not be URL-munging) for a client to take the collection URL, extend it > > with a revision-id, and use the resulting URL to locate the desired > > revision. > > No, I think that doing so would be an extension of the currently > known required URL-munging methods. I'm not sure I understand why this would be so. It seems to me that all you've got here is a collection that is defined to contain references to revisions; the munging going on is the same munging that happens when you ask for a member of a collection. No? -- /=============================================================\ |John Stracke | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK | |francis@ecal.com|============================================| |Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed | |eCal Corp. | by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch | \=============================================================/
Received on Thursday, 11 March 1999 14:25:45 UTC