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

more v5 draft questions

From: Jim Davis <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 17:29:37 PST
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19971216172937.007d0100@mailback.parc.xerox.com>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
8.11.5 has the Depth value "infinity" written as "Infinity".  Should be
lower case

Sometimes the opaquelocktoken scheme is written in all lower case (8.13.10)
and sometimes in mixed case (8.12.5)

Also 8.13.10 writes the locktoken "directly", rather than as a Coded-URL,
as mandated by 9.11   

Perhaps it would be useful to move the definition of Coded-URL from 9.5
Destroy Header to someplace more generic, since it is used in many places
(e.g. Enforce-Live-Properties, Lock-Token request and response headers etc)

Why is Coded-URL not used in the "AdditionalLocks" portion of the Lock-Info
request header (unless that's because AdditionalLocks is to be dropped, as
I suspect?)

Finally, can someone explain to me why we need "Coded-URL"?  Why can't we
just write property names as property names?  We don't seem to need to code
the URI in the Destination header, so why do we need to code it when used
in e.g. Enforce-Live-Properties, or for a list of locks?

To take this from a slightly different angle, when a property name is
written as a coded-URL, it looks just the same as if if were an XML open
tag.  Would it be better to express them as "empty" tags instead?  The
difference is that <foo><bar><quux> is not legal XML, but
<foo/><bar/></quux/> is.  Another advantage, although unlikely to arise in
practise is that XML allows for tags to have arbitrary attibutes, e.g. I
could have  <foo type="3"/>.  Here, the "property name" is just foo.  so
there's a real difference, I think, between expressing this is a coded-URL
of the property name as opposed to as a tag.
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 1997 21:45:27 GMT

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