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

RE: [hwarncke@Adobe.COM: Re: [dav-dev] Depth Infinity Requests]

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 17:20:12 -0400
Message-ID: <65B141FB11CCD211825700A0C9D609BC03093C18@chef.lex.rational.com>
To: "'Jim Davis'" <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
I agree with the "client proposes, server disposes" guideline,
but currently we are (in my view, inappropriately) limiting what
the client can propose.

In particular, we are not allowing the client to propose an
upper limit such as "20" or "100", even when the client knows
that to be the appropriate upper limit for its PROPFIND request.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Davis [mailto:jrd3@alum.mit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 5:14 PM
To: WebDAV WG
Subject: RE: [hwarncke@Adobe.COM: Re: [dav-dev] Depth Infinity Requests]


At 05:58 PM 7/6/00 +0100, Gary Barnett wrote:
>I think that creating a specification that builds in non-deterministic
>behaviour would be a real pain.
>
>I think that the idea of passing a depth value (with perhaps a default
value
>which all servers support) makes sense from a client perspective.

What we gain from the indeterminacy is flexibility.  Otherwise, we either
set the minimum standard high (and rule out cheap implementations) or set
it low (thus requiring all clients to use inefficient methods, and making
powerful implementations either useless or non-standard.)

Yaron put it like this

"The client proposes, the server disposes".

Clients should ask for what they want, and be prepared to get less than
that.
Received on Thursday, 6 July 2000 21:45:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:54 GMT