W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2002


From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 09:26:24 +0100
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEIBDOAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 1:42 AM
> To: Daniel Brotsky; Julian Reschke
> Cc: Jason Crawford; Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org; Julian Reschke
> ...
> So my position is pretty similar to Dan's: make it clear that DAV:owner is
> owned by clients, and don't add any way for servers to insert lock owner
> principal information.  I prefer any other extensions to DAV to be done
> outside the base spec since they are clearly not needed for basic
> interoperability and would delay Draft Standard.

One could also take the position that we're *fixing* an interoperability
problem. The current RFC says [1]:

"The owner XML element provides information sufficient for either directly
contacting a principal (such as a telephone number or Email URI), or for
discovering the principal (such as the URL of a homepage) who owns a lock."

Right now it doesn't, because it's format is unspecified (and examples in
the draft are inconsistent).

To understand the implications of adding a new field, it would be useful to
have some idea about which timeframe we speak. Any guess how long it will
take until a new edition could be submitted? If it's a matter of several
months, I'd suggest adding the new element (it shouldn't hurt as long it's
optional, well-defined, and we can demonstrate interoperability).

[1] <http://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2518.html#ELEMENT_owner>
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 03:26:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:24 UTC