Re: Versions and configurations
David J. Fiander (davidf@worf.mks.com)
Thu, 30 May 1996 08:13:40 -0400
> I'm troubled by the 'decorate URL' style of version referencing, but
> the alternatives ("add additional HTTP methods") seems worse. I
> suppose if a version is something that you want to be able to talk
> about, then it should have its own URL.
I'm starting to sound like a broken wheel here, I think. The
only decoration that I will fight for is the basic
";version=<version-id>" decoration. This allows for pages to
link to older revisions of themselves, in a way that is
transparent to clients and, to be honest, is clearly
implementable, since MKS has already fielded this functionality.
Any additional MKS decorations are there because of the original
design constraints of the "skunkworks" project, and I wouldn't
miss them if they disappeared.
Two more things: 1) if we're not supposed to use URL parameters,
why are they in the spec? and 2) the URL parameter makes sense,
because one can think of different revisions of a document as
different documents, much like the VMS or ISO 9660 filesystem
method of indicating different file revisions with a ";revno" on
the file name.
- David