Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:58:37 +0100, Julian Reschke
<[email protected]> wrote:
Sam Johnston wrote:
* 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.
As long as the words "previous", "next" and "last" aren't used, there's
no collision. "predecessor" and "successor" are pretty unambiguous and
don't collide with any existing link relations that I'm aware of. Also,
They do not collide with link relations, but they aren't unambiguous
either. For instance, <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071562/> is the
successor of <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/>, but it's not a
successor version.
in this context (talking about documents) what else than "an earlier
version" might you refer to when pointing to a "predecessor"?
In other words; I agree with Sam. I think the shorter and more concise
relations are better. Either use words that don't imply "version" (like
"previous" and "next") and suffix them with "-version" or use words that
unambiguously refer to "versions" and have no suffix, but not a mix of
both.
Not convinced. I'll leave this to the expert review and the IESG.
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.
I think such problems are important to explore, since this I-D is
something these SCM's might want to implement.
I agree that it's an interesting problem, but just because something is
interesting doesn't mean it needs to be solved in this proposal. At this
point, I'd rather take out things than add new things.
Best regards, Julian
