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

RE: Links to latest bis working docs

From: <lakshmi@cs.utep.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 17:28:21 -0600 (MDT)
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0209101727420.8895-100000@gecko>

Please remove me from this mailing list!! I ve been trying to unsubscribe
with no result.!
thanks

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Julian Reschke wrote:

>
> Lisa,
>
> it probably would be safer just to say that there was a discussion and to
> point to the relevant mailig list archive enties.
>
> The problem with the "interoperable solution" is that the "solution"
> *itself* is in conflict with the base spec RFC2616 (HTTP), so by definition
> it can't be the protocol that an RFC based on HTTP recommends.
>
> 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 10:37 PM
> > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Links to latest bis working docs
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 19:29:07 GMT

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