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: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:30:43 +0200
Cc: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-Id: <0D83F6C1-E7F4-11D6-9950-00039384827E@greenbytes.de>

I think it's not a good idea to report information about
"all" quota spaces in a resource:

- the resource might not know all quotas on the server
- you need additional information which quota applies to the
   current resource

Since the reported set is likely to be incomplete (and or expensive
to compute), I think only one quote should be reported.

However, I do think that there is benefit in having one quota-xxx
property which has a XML structured value. That makes it easy to
extend in the future.


Am Donnerstag, 24.10.02, um 20:35 Uhr (Europe/Berlin) schrieb Julian 

>> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
>> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:22 PM
>> To: 'Julian Reschke'; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
>> Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt
>> Why do you think this is preferable for the client?  Why not keep
> It allows marshalling of multiple quota constraints (and we know that 
> there
> may be more than one).
>> single-property, single-value?  This complicates things even for the
>> server.
> Why? For a server that enforces only a single constraint, it's just a 
> few
> more XML tags to add. Where's the problem?
> Confused,
> Julian
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 04:30:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:26 UTC