[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Comments on Action:draft-brown-versioning-link-relations-03
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:58:37 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>
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
* 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, 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
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.
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- asbjorn@xxxxxxxxxx
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»