Something I have not understood in this entire thread is why a URL
schema has to be considered to be anything other than a useful additive
for HTTP GET requests?
Does it really have to be more than that?
On Fri, 2003-08-08 at 14:40, Bruce Atherton wrote:
> At 01:30 PM 8/6/2003 -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
>
> >THE SOLUTIONS:
> >
> > 1. Do nothing for now. Has some popularity at the moment.
> >
> > 2. Add something to the end, whether it's "?rev=REV" or ";REV" or
> > "@REV" or "@@REV" or "@@/REV".
> >
> > Issues: Relative browsing breaks (i.e. relative HTTP URLs within
> > Subversion documents will produce URLs which don't include the
> > version component.) Creates complexity when paths actually end
> > with something which looks like a trailing version component.
> > Conceptually backwards, since a pathname can indicate a totally
> > different resource (node) at different revs, not just different
> > content.
>
> (Sorry to bring this up so late in the thread)
>
> Also, see Greg Stein's message from the last go-round on this explaining
> why an "at-the-end" solution would not work with DAV:
>
> http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2003-06/0166.shtml
>
> The short summary is that "at-the-end" doesn't work with DAV due to
> complications with collections and PROPFIND. If you want your URL format to
> support DAV (and you want revisions to be DAV resources), it will have to
> be "in-the-middle" in some way.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
--
Jerry Haltom
Feedback Plus, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 8 21:59:26 2003