- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:58:37 +0100
- To: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net>
- CC: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>, Atom-syntax Syntax' <atom-syntax@imc.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Sam Johnston wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de > <mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de>> wrote: > > Hi Sam, > > I'm not convinced that throwing everything into a single document > will be helpful; draft-brown-versioning-link-relations tries to > focus on a small set of things, and, as Jan's feedback shows, it's > non-trivial to get even those things right. > > > I'm not suggesting throwing everything in one document - just keeping > addressing (permalinks, shortlinks, etc.) separate from versioning. It > may well make more sense to drop relations from > draft-johnston-addressing-link-relations if they are more about > versioning than addressing. OK, thanks for clarifying. > Do you have any *specific* comments with respect to the relations > that it proposes? > > > My first thoughts were that the relations themselves could be more concise: I don't think that it's essential to make these short names even shorter. The terms we currently use are in sync with some specs related to versioning. > * version-history -> versions, history or revisions > * latest-version -> latest > * working-copy -> ok > * predecessor-version -> predecessor or previous-version or > prev-version (which is it, prev or previous - I think there's some > ambiguity here) > * successor-version -> successor or next-version I think the suffix "-version" is important because there can be many other similar relations providing "prex/next/last", which have nothing to do with versioning. > I also wonder whether it makes sense to offer links to "native" revision > control (e.g. hg, git, svn, etc.) and/or web interfaces to them - and > then specifics like branches and tags, and what a URI/URL to a > branch/tag would even look like. That's an interesting thought, but appears to be a much more complex problem that the one we wanted to solve here. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 26 November 2009 15:59:19 UTC