Sam Johnston wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Julian Reschke <[email protected]
<mailto:[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.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
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:
I don't think that it's essential to make these short names even
shorter. The terms we currently use are in sync with some specs related
to versioning.
* 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 think the suffix "-version" is important because there can be many
other similar relations providing "prex/next/last", which have nothing
to do with versioning.
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.
That's an interesting thought, but appears to be a much more complex
problem that the one we wanted to solve here.
Best regards, Julian
