Re: New RFC2518bis draft

Just for clarity, given the timing of various responses: I'm squarely 
with Geoff and Julian on this one: we should redefine (well, clarify) 
DAV:ALLPROP as Julian suggests and not do any deprecation.

     dan

On Sunday, July 7, 2002, at 05:00 PM, Clemm, Geoff wrote:

>
>    From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
>
>> From:  Lisa Dusseault
>>
>> The proposed text in 2518 bis does deprecate allprop as well as
> redefine
>> it to a certain extent. If 'allprop' is redefined, without being
> renamed
>> or deprecated, it will cause confusion for new implementors.  Here are
>> some of the options:
>>  1) Deprecate.
>>  2) Redefine and leave in place.  Disadvantage: confusion to new
>> implementers who will be misled by the apparent meaning of 'allprop'
>> into misunderstanding what it does.
>
>    Advantage: this is the current situation with RFC3253 and the ACL
>    spec, and this doesn't seem to cause any confusion at all. All we
>    need is to clarify RFC2518.
>
>    I agree that the name "allprop" will be a bit confusing. But that's
>    something that can be solved by properly explaining it, right?
>
> I agree.  I have little concern over any confusion resulting from the
> name "DAV:allprop".  The concept of "all dead properties plus 2518
> defined properties" is very simple, and should be easy to convey.  And
> even if an implementor gets it wrong and returns some (or all)
> non-2518 live properties as well, little or no harm is done.
>
>>  3) Rename and redefine (e.g. 'deadprop', defined to return all
>> the dead properties).  Disadvantage: servers that were previously
>> compliant with 2518 will not be compliant with 2518bis.
>
> I think this disadvantage significantly outweighs the minor benefits
> of a slightly better name for this concept.
>
>> No functionality is lost by deprecating allprop - clients can always
> use
>> the 'propname' request to find all the dead and live property names,
> and
>> select among those.
>
>    Yes, but at greatly increased cost, both in number of roundtrips, 
> client
>    complexity and computation time in the server. I've explained this in
>    <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-
> auth/2002JanMar/0186.html>:
>
> I agree that it is valuable to have a simple mechanism for retrieving
> all dead properties in one request (especially for a non-zero Depth
> PROPFIND), and I agree that using DAV:allprop is the most interoperable
> mechanism for providing this mechanism.
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>

Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 12:44:12 UTC