- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 09:43:33 -0500
- To: Ossi Nykänen <onykane@butler.cc.tut.fi>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Hi, On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:14:40PM +0200, Ossi Nykänen wrote: > In addition (for symmetry), I think there should be a recommended URI > naming convention for versioning (derived from an appropriate XML Schema > data type). For instance, when presented a resource > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210 > > an agent could hypothesise that there is an "up-to-date" resource > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml > > and mechanically check the metadata of that resource ([2]): > > [2m] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml/meta.rdf I'd suggest that asserting the relationship between those resources would best be done with a triple, rather than naming conventions. If done with an HTTP header, you might get these headers in a response to a GET or HEAD on http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml-19980210; HTTP/1.1 200 Ok Metadata: http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml/meta.rdf Up-to-date: http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-xml Note that you can run out and write up an I-D to define these headers right now if you want to; Web architecture already supports this form of extension. IMO, I don't think this is anything requiring TAG attention. Thanks. MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Will distribute objects for food
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 09:39:41 UTC