On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 03:17:04PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> 1. Should property names be URIs?
>
> (Oh, I see you just sent a mail saying "I relent, for now.". Heh.
> Anyway, I'll describe this issue briefly so we all agree what we're
> talking about.) The two sub-questions are:
>
> a) Subversion-specific prop names need a unique prefix. Should
> that prefix be "svn:" or some longer URI? We lobby for plain
> old "svn:" -- it's easier to work with, and the namespace
> protection is frankly about the same.
>
> b) Should all other prop names always be URIs? When the user
> doesn't specify a URI, should Subversion force it into a URI?
> We say no, let the namespace sort itself out. This has worked
> fine with many other systems in the past, and our experience
> (which may or may not be the same as yours) suggests that URI
> schemes don't really improve matters, they just make everyone
> work with longer strings.
<delurk>
Allow me to again suggest the use of urn's. For example, an
SVN specific property could be
urn:svn:an:svn:prop:in:the:local:copy
or some such.
This is short, and unique. Yay.
sam th
sam@uchicago.edu
http://www.abisource.com/~sam
GnuPG Key:
http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:18 2006