Re: High-level capabilities

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: David J. Fiander: "Re: Version identifier in URL"
• Previous message: David J. Fiander: "Re: Versioning Thoughts (in HTML)"
• Maybe in reply to: Jim Whitehead: "High-level capabilities"

> So, before I can read what you wrote, I have to translate:
>
> # 1. Retrieval of a stated version of a resource: Any given revision of
> # a resource should (?) be accessible... etc.
>
> Now that I read it, I don't really go along with your requirements;
> I'd like to see something like:
>
>
>   IF a server is providing access to a sytem with underlying version
>   management capability
>
>   THEN the accessible versions of a resource should be named with
>     URLs of the following style.

Larry, I think that for casual (or even not so casual) discussion
on the list, we can assume that we are discussing a "server
[that] is providing access to a system with underlying version
management capability."  Of course, your text is clearly more
appropriate for the RFC.

> You might want to add warning messages or errors, e.g., VERSION NOT
> AVAILABLE, but provide a (stylized?) link to the latest(?) version,
> also to provide some mechanism for querying available versions, etc.

This is the sort of stuff that could (would?) go into the entity
returned with the status code.

- David

• Next message: David J. Fiander: "Re: Version identifier in URL"
• Previous message: David J. Fiander: "Re: Versioning Thoughts (in HTML)"
• Maybe in reply to: Jim Whitehead: "High-level capabilities"