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

Re: Comments on Section 3 of the Requirements Document

From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:03:19 PST
Message-ID: <3302A097.1EEC@parc.xerox.com>
To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
CC: "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Yaron Goland wrote:
> Requirements documents are first and foremost goal posts. They defined
> what success is, they do not define how to succeed. So while I think the
> question of what we are going to do w/HTTP is critical, I do not believe
> that discussion should be included in the requirements doc. The
> requirements doc should state that we must use HTTP as our base but
> where we take it is the whole point of this group.

I don't even think the requirements document needs to state that "we
must use
HTTP as our base", either.

The requirements document is not the only constraint on the group's
of course.

I think it would be a viable option to define a DAV protocol that didn't
use HTTP at all.

> As for when to discuss what we are doing to HTTP, I would strongly
> suggest that we discuss this on a case by case basis. Simply stating
> "free for all" or "no alterations" only guarantees that original ideas
> will be killed.

Well, there's a fundamental choice, really, that isn't to be made 
case-by-case, which is "are we layering a completely new distributed
object protocol on top of HTTP". If you're going to do that a little,
you might as well do it all the way. If you're not, then you shouldn't
do it in little parts.

This isn't a matter of killing original ideas, it's one of coming up
a spec that's self-consistent.

I don't think "self-consistency" needs to be in the requirements
even though it's a requirement.

Received on Thursday, 13 February 1997 00:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:14 UTC