On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Julian Reschke <[email protected]>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. > 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: - 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 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. Sam
