W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 1999

RE: Advanced Collections

From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 15:07:25 -0400
Message-ID: <8E3CFBC709A8D21191A400805F15E0DBD243DD@crte147.wc.eso.mc.xerox.com>
To: "'Yaron Goland (Exchange)'" <yarong@exchange.microsoft.com>, "W3c-Dist-Auth (E-mail)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Yes, we do intend to split the advanced collections spec into 3 parts.  I'm
currently working on that task and hope to have it completed within the next
couple of weeks.

Speaking just for myself, I agree that having an agreed object model would
make life immensely easier for everyone.

--Judy


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Goland (Exchange) [mailto:yarong@exchange.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 1999 2:43 PM
> To: W3c-Dist-Auth (E-mail)
> Subject: Advanced Collections
> 
> 
> In 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999JulSep/0
> 019.html I
> raised the issue that the advanced collection specification 
> should be split
> into three drafts. At the WebDAV meeting in OSLO the 
> consensus of those
> present (or was that just Jeff and I? =) was that the draft 
> should be split.
> While that consensus is not binding on the group I do think 
> that it calls
> for some discussion of the topic on the mailing list. As such 
> I would like
> to hear from the authors of the advanced collection 
> specification. Do they
> intend to split the draft?
> 
> Also, I haven't seen the meeting notes from Oslo posted but 
> one thing that
> was decided by Keith is that WebDAV is being shut down in 3 
> months. If the
> advanced collection drafts aren't done by then they will have 
> to continue as
> individual submissions.
> 
> For those wondering about
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1999JulSep/0
020.html, I
found myself very frustrated in reading the advanced collection
specification. I decided that the source of my frustration was that the
WebDAV WG had failed to provide a clearly defined object model and so
advanced collections was forced to try and come up with definitions of the
part of the WebDAV object model that it was attempting to expand. In the
absence of a general model with clear language the AC draft ended up like
the blind men with the elephant. The definitions fit the part of the
elephant AC was standing in front of but was extremely difficult to
understand because it lacked the context of the whole beast.  

The object model draft is a first attempt to address this problem. I look
forward, when the object model draft is more mature, to seeing AC re-written
to use its terminology and to see Delta-V and DASL using it as well. Having
a single well defined set based object model will go a long way to ensure
that WebDAV can continue to grow but still be coherent.

		Yaron
Received on Friday, 6 August 1999 15:07:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:51 GMT