Lindelsee, Mike wrote:
>I agree completely that versioning the naming authority could be useful in a number of contexts, but I'm still trying to understand what exactly that would mean when it comes to resolution. For instance, how would versioned naming authorities work in a DDDS-style resolution?
>
>Mike
>
>
Not sure it is required. I do not recall seeing a requirement that
XRI:URI's MUST resolve (forever). While i do agree that resolution
processing language needs special attention in these cases. All the
resolver can do is locate the "current" resource at the noted location,
not the version instance. However, using RegEx (but requiring the input
string being the complete URI), one could rewrite the "versioned
authority" to a "versioned resource" during dereferencing using DDDS.
I think this could be particularly powerfull when the authority
host.foo.biz[;2002-04-01T20:10:23Z]/this/resource is declared equivelent
(aka Cross-Referenced) to some other XRI (say
urn:foo:(+resource)[;2003-04-12T00:00:00Z]
--- peterd
>>line 159:
>>[ISSUE: It would be nice if naming authority parts were NOT
>>versioned to
>>make resolution simpler. Then, only the local part segments have
>>versioning info in them, and interpretation of this versioning
>>information would be local to the client and ultimate leaf
>>directory. ]
>>
>><snip/>
>>
>>xri://some.domain.int[;2001-03-04T20:15:40Z]/foo/bar
>>
>>esp. since URIs are re-assignable. This allows for "This was the
>>authority at time T".
>>
>>--- peterd
>>
>>
>>
>>
