W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 23:36:04 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCOEKFHCAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Lisa,

> The spec can say "When a resource is moved within a collection and the
> destination did not previously exist (the 'rename' case), its relative
> ordering MUST be preserved." Or the spec could say SHOULD or MAY.
> However, staying silent on an issue like this allows some implementors
> to assume MUST and others to assume MAY.

if the spec is silent on the issue simply means that it's undefined. So an
implementor that assumes this mean "MUST" simply is wrong. The point being,
we (Geoff and myself) feel that the spec shouldn't require any specific
server behaviour, and thus not defining it at all seems to be absolutely
reasonable.

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: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:06 PM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'WebDAV'
> Subject: RE: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections
>
>
>
> "No change" isn't acceptable when the comment is that something is not
> specified.  My last issue was "if a destination is not being
> overwritten, then shouldn't the MOVE (the rename) preserve ordering?"
>
> The spec can say "When a resource is moved within a collection and the
> destination did not previously exist (the 'rename' case), its relative
> ordering MUST be preserved." Or the spec could say SHOULD or MAY.
> However, staying silent on an issue like this allows some implementors
> to assume MUST and others to assume MAY.
>
> That said, if a sentence like this is added to the draft we do not need
> to go through WG last call again for this issue.
>
> Lisa
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 8:06 AM
> > To: WebDAV
> > Subject: RE: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections
> >
> >
> >
> > OK,
> >
> > now that the WG last call period has ended, let's decide how
> > to proceed.
> >
> > There was one open issue, for which there was one vote for
> > change (Lisa),
> > and one vote for no change (Geoff). As acting editor I lean
> > to no-change. If
> > this is ok for everybody, I'll submit the draft located at
> >
> >
> http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-ordering-protocol-lat
> est.
> html
>
> as version 08.
>
> 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 Julian Reschke
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 10:23 PM
> > To: Jim Whitehead; WebDAV
> > Subject: RE: Reminder: WG Last Call on Ordered Collections
> >
> >
> >
> > Thans Jim,
> >
> > the current edits are this URL:
> >
> >
> > http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-ordering-protoc
> > ol-latest.
> > html
> >
> > There's currently one unresolved issue for which I am looking for
> > feedback:
> >
> >
> > http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-ordering-protoc
> > ol-latest.
> > html#rfc.issue.6.1-when-are-members-added
> >
> > In case that there's no additional feedback, the plan is to close
> > it as "no
> > change".
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Julian
> >
> > --
> > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
> >
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 17:36:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:04 GMT