RE: Minor nits for redirectref-02

There has been no discussion of this issue in the versioning design
team.  I personally see no problem with the change from "SHOULD NOT"
to "MUST NOT".  I believe the wording was originally from Jim Whitehead.
Jim?

Cheers,
Geoff

> From w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org Tue Feb  1 11:29 EST 2000
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Orton [mailto:joe@orton.demon.co.uk]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 5:17 PM
> > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Subject: Minor nits for redirectref-02
> > 
> > 
> > 1) In the MKRESOURCE response status codes, 423 Locked and 507
> > Insufficient storage are included; this seems unnecessary. 
> > 2518 specifies
> > what these mean. You can't include the full set of valid 
> > status codes in
> > responses to MKRESOURCE, else you'd have to include all the 
> > normal HTTP
> > codes too, so why not just stick to new or changed codes?
> > 
> 
> If anyone finds the inclusion of 423 and 507 helpful, I'd just as leave keep
> them.  Greg has indicated that he does think it's useful to mention existing
> response codes that might be expected and the circumstances that might cause
> them to be returned.
> 
> > 2) MKRESOURCE responses "SHOULD NOT be cached" implies there 
> > are odd cases
> > when it's okay to cache them, is this right?
> 
> I know there was no discussion of this issue among the authors of the
> Redirect References spec.  The definition of MKRESOURCE also appears in the
> DeltaV spec, for which it was originally drafted.  Geoff, was there any
> discussion of SHOULD NOT vs. MUST NOT in the DeltaV working group?  Unless
> there was some good reason for making the weaker statement, we should
> probably change it to MUST NOT in both specs.
> 
> > 
> > joe
> > 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2000 12:47:23 UTC