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

RE: Links to latest bis working docs

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 13:37:13 -0700
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c25909$d8ef3bd0$b3377280@xythoslap>

Yes, I have little problem with including more information in the
*extremely brief* summary of the debate.  It is always difficult to
summarize a debate, whether briefly or at length.  I had thought that
that putting the summary in a non-standards-track document would be
safe.

I still believe that "interoperable" is a fair characterization, however
I can also add the words "non-compliant".  If we go about qualifying
implementations based on full compliance, I fear that random software
bugs would disqualify many many implementations.

lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 1:09 PM
> To: Lisa Dusseault; 'Clemm, Geoff'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs
> 
> Lisa,
> 
> my complaint was that it lists only one of many reasons for rejecting
yet,
> but also states that there are interoperable implementations. They may
> exist, but at least one of them (IIS) does not conform to RFC2616
(HTTP),
> so
> I don't think it qualifies as relevant implementation.
> 
> Julian
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 10:06 PM
> > To: 'Clemm, Geoff'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs
> >
> >
> >
> > Please note that the "Translate" header does not appear in the
"revised
> > [2518] document".
> >
> > The "RFC2518 Changes" document discusses issues that have been
brought
> > up on the list -- including the proposal that had been made, on the
> > list, to standardize the Translate header.  This document is only to
> > help keep track of issues (together with Jason's page) and RFC bis
> > changes, and is not on any standards track.  Note also that this
> > document briefly, and I believe correctly, summarizes that the
working
> > group rejected the solution.
> >
> > If you still have problems with this characterization and where it
> > appears, please explain.
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Clemm, Geoff
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 12:26 PM
> > > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree with Julian.  Since the consensus of the working group
> > > was to reject the Translate header approach (for the reasons
> > > Julian mentions, and others), I believe it should not be
introduced
> > > in the revised document, and definitely should not be
characterized as
> > an
> > > "interoperable solution".
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Geoff
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 2:37 PM
> > > To: Lisa Dusseault; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Just two comments on:
> > >
> > > 1.1       Source property
> > > The Source property has not had interoperability demonstrated, but
> > > messages
> > > to the list support keeping some way of retrieving the source of
> > > dynamically-generated Web pages.  An interoperable solution exists
> > (the
> > > Microsoft Translate header) but has received rejection on the list
due
> > to
> > > its lack of support for dynamically-generated resources with
multiple
> > > source
> > > files.
> > >
> > >
> > > - the Translate header violates RFC2616 which explicitly says that
> > variant
> > > handling is *not* supposed to switch between "getting the source"
and
> > > "executing a script"
> > >
> > > - the actual implementation in IIS breaks RFC2616 in that it
doesn't
> > list
> > > "Translate" as request header on which the GET result varies.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards, Julian
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de --
tel:+492512807760
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
> > > Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:07 PM
> > > To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > > Cc: joels@microsoft.com
> > > Subject: Links to latest bis working docs
> > >
> > >
> > > I promised yesterday I'd put up links to the most recent
> > work-in-progress.
> > > http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/dav/draft-ietf-webdav-
> > > rfc2518bis.d
> > > oc
> > >
http://www.sharemation.com/~milele/public/dav/RFC2518%20Changes.doc
> > > Sometime after the Interop, I'll be doing the real formatted draft
> > thing
> > > of
> > > course.
> > > Lisa
> >
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 16:37:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:01 GMT