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

comments on v5

From: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 12:11:48 PST
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971125131148.00972100@mailback.parc.xerox.com>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I've read the new draft.  it's great.  I have sent all the minor comments
(typos) to the editor.  I have two that are at least somewhat substantial.

property naming

There is still some inconsistency in choice of property names, although
much improved.  Some names are formed by concatenation (e.g. lockscope) and
some by hyphenation.  The latter are easier to read and if you could use
these uniformly it would be great.

opaquelocktoken (5.4)

It seems kind of weird to me that opaque lock tokens *require* the GUID
mechanism.  Surely it sufficies to just say that the tokens must be unique,
and leave it to servers to figure out how to do this.  GUIDs are certainly
one way, but there are surely others.  

Let me put this question another way.  Suppose One wanted to use a lock
token that was not based on GUID.  I see two ways to do it
 1) Define a new URI scheme (foolocktoken) and extend Lock-Token to return
and accept these kind in addition to opaquelocktoken
 2) Make opaquelocktoken itself extensible by adding a scheme to the front
e.g. opaquelocktoken:guid for the ones in the DAV spec.

If opaquelocktoken really just means GUID, why not call it GUID and be done
with it?

Also, the GUID internet draft is expired.  What is the status of it?



Jim


------------------------------------
http://www.parc.xerox.com/jdavis/
650-812-4301
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 1997 16:11:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:44 GMT