W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

RE: Specification Guidelines

From: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:04:40 PST
Message-Id: <2.2.32.19970207150440.0093ed78@pop-server.wrc.xerox.com>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
At 08:43 PM 2/6/97 PST, Yaron Goland wrote:
>Judith, why does all of your mail come from
>w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org?

I have no idea.  Stuff from the mailing list always gets routed to me
through w3c-dist-auth-request as well.

>
>1. If we decide that we want to try to stay within the HTTP framework,
>can
>we try to model our spec on the HTTP 1.1 spec?  We could still keep the
>functional divisions we have in the current spec, but within each
>division,
>assume HTTP request and response syntax and have a section on new
>methods, a
>section on new status codes, and a section on new headers.  Hopefully
>there
>wouldn't be any new MIME types, but if there are, then a section on new
>MIME
>types; and if there are any new name spaces, a section discussing them.
>
>The previous proposal only makes sense if we are going to continue using
>bodies w/methods. If we intend to switch to a header only format then we
>will be required to use method specific headers and those should clearly
>not be in a section separate from the method definitions. What is the
>group's feelings on the issue of body vs headers?

I favor headers, and don't have a strong feeling about where they should be
defined.

>
>3. Add a section on why this spec is needed anyway.
>
>I disagree. If the use of the protocol is not self evident then it is a
>badly designed protocol.

I do think such a section is extremely useful.  I've been looking through
attribute-related specs the past few days, and I've been very grateful to
authors who say on the first page what problems they are trying to address,
so that I don't have to read the rest of the spec if their problem set is
different from mine.

>
>As for your other points, I basically agree. The current spec is a mess
>but that was to be expected. The authors severely screwed up their
>scheduling and didn't give themselves enough time to prepare the spec
>before the meeting. We shall not repeat that error.
>

You did a huge amount of work, and I'm sure no one faults you for not having
a polished, watertight spec in time for the Irvine meeting.  Thanks for all
you've done!

--Judy
Name:			Judith A. Slein
E-Mail:			slein@wrc.xerox.com
Internal Phone:  	8*222-5169
External Phone:		(716) 422-5169
Fax:			(716) 265-7133
MailStop:		128-29E
Received on Friday, 7 February 1997 10:02:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT