> From: Michal Maczka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [snip] > > With the changes to the URI syntax I'm proposing, using version 1.1 of > > commons-dbcp > > as an example, the license would be stored at: > > http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-dbcp/1.1/licenses/license.html > > not: > > > http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-dbcp/1.1/licenses/license-1.1.html > > > > In case of the majority of artifacts version name should be a part of > artifact file name. > I might agree that > http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-dbcp/1.1/licenses/license.html > is acceptable but for a sake of consistency - we should rather use > http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-dbcp/1.1/licenses/license-1.1.html > > > Note that artifacts like > > http://repo.apache.org/apache/commons-dbcp/1.1/licenses/license-1.1.html > > or > > http://repo.apache.org/apache/stsruts/1.1/tlds/struts-tiles.1.1.tld > > are almost always no important for humans. > > > Michal >
>From the requirements at http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/Requirements: "ASF Repository shall ... allow browsing and downloading of artifacts by humans via normal web browser". Requiring a version to be part of the artifact file name when the artifact is only useful to end users (e.g README), reduces clarity. -Tim