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

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:01:03 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Eric Sedlar'" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEFCFKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 11:33 PM
> To: 'Eric Sedlar'; 'Clemm, Geoff'; 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt
>
>
>
> But we *do* have implementations -- Xythos WebFile Server and Apple
> iDisk both implement quota with WebDAV properties to expose the values.

I just did PROPFIND/propname on

	http://idisk.mac.com/interop01/

(doesn't have the properties listed) and on

	http://www.sharemation.com/~(someusername)

(doesn't have them, but does have
{http://www.xythos.com/namespaces/StorageServer}quota).

> This implementation experience, and the desire to have interoperability
> between the clients and servers from these two implementers, led to the
> writing of the draft.

Which clients support it then?

> Thus, the draft is fairly reliably known to work for
>  - the Sharemation model, where every user is given a quota tied to
> their home directory but they can assign sub-quotas to sub-directories
> if they want
>  - the iDisk model, where every user is given a home directory and a
> single top-level quota
>  - the WFS corporate customer model, where users put their stuff in
> shared directories like 'dev', 'sales', 'hr' -- and so you can *only*
> measure quota by directory, not by user.
>
> We always have a temptation to make designs "more generally
> applicable".. However sometimes I fear we fall in the trap of making the
> designs too extensible, too theoretical, too much like a framework, and
> in general too complex to actually reasonable accomplish what are
> sometimes modest goals.

But then we also sometimes fall into the trap of standardizing too early,
right?

There's nothing wrong in publicly describing a specific extension (actually,
that's very good). But it's a big step from having something that seems to
satisfy one or two server's needs, and a design that is generic enough to be
considered as the generic approach for WebDAV servers.

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2002 18:01:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:02 GMT