Re: Version identifier in URL
Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Thu, 30 May 1996 08:58:57 -0400
In message <96May29.162909pdt.2733@golden.parc.xerox.com>, Larry Masinter write
s:
>Wait, I didn't see that anyone was proposing to "standardize the
>syntax of version identifiers across all servers".
I did:
=============
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 22:08:19 -0700
From: Christopher Seiwald <seiwald@p3.com>
Message-Id: <199605290508.WAA05273@spice.p3.com>
To: ejw@ics.uci.edu
Subject: Re: Version identifier in URL
Cc: www-vers-wg@ics.uci.edu
[...]
We need to stick to our guns: make a simple version extention to URLs
and make them standard.
Christopher
----
Christopher Seiwald P3 Software http://www.p3.com
seiwald@p3.com f-f-f-fast SCM 1-510-865-8720
=============
>> The point is: you can't tell the relationship between address A1
>> and address A2 just by looking at their syntax: you need explicit
>> information that says one is a version of the other. The Resource
>> element is one such syntax.
>
>Separate out the problem of
> a) construct a URL for a previous version of a resource
> given the current version of a resource and information
> about the server's versioning system
> b) determining from two URLs what their version relationship
> might be.
>
>I think it's reasonable to use URL-decoration for (a) and not for (b).
>
>Maybe it's OK if the only way you can accomplish (b) is to retrieve
>attributes of the actual resources, and not their URLs.
Fair enough. ?version=xxx seems reasonable for (a)
Dan