W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2000

RE: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.PublishBind

From: Slein, Judith A <JSlein@crt.xerox.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:48:20 -0500
Message-ID: <8E3CFBC709A8D21191A400805F15E0DBD24576@crte147.wc.eso.mc.xerox.com>
To: "'Yaron Goland'" <yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I think it's important for the binding spec and the redirect reference spec
to cross-reference each other, because they really are in the same space,
and implementers need to understand how bindings differ from redirect
references, when it's appropriate to use each of these in order to decide
which spec to implement or whether they need both.
There is precedent for a family of specs referencing each other in the MIME
specs 2045 - 2049.
If it does look as if one of these specs is running into trouble and might
jeopardize the approval of the other, I would certainly want to remove the
cross-references and comparisons rather than jeopardize both specs.

- -Judy


 -----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Goland [mailto:yarong@Exchange.Microsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 8:50 PM
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Subject: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.PublishBind

The spec refers to the redirect resource draft, even attempting to refer to
its RFC number. This means that the bind spec can not be published as an RFC
until the redirect resource draft is approved. While it is nice to point out
that the redirect resource draft exists I can find no compelling reason to
mention it when doing so restricts the schedule for the Bind draft's
standardization. Therefore I move that all references to the redirect
resource draft be stricken from the Bind spec, specifically the removal of
the last paragraph of the abstract, the 2nd, 4th and 5th to last paragraphs
of the Introduction and the reference [RR].
Received on Friday, 21 January 2000 10:48:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:21 UTC