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

RE: Issues and status, WRITE_DAV_PROP, BACKGROUND, NULL_RESOURCE, CONSISTENCY

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 07:48:57 -0400
To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <OFF9C35F6E.FD7E30D1-ON85256D4E.0040D564-85256D4E.0040E7AD@us.ibm.com>
I also agree we can close these issues.

Cheers,
Geoff

w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org wrote on 06/22/2003 02:33:18 PM:

> 
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 7:26 PM
> > To: Jason Crawford; Webdav WG
> > Subject: Issues and status, WRITE_DAV_PROP, BACKGROUND, NULL_RESOURCE,
> > CONSISTENCY
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > WRITE_DAV_PROP:  This issue is at least addressed in RFC2518bis, 
> > if not completely closed.  It was addressed separately for each 
> > property in the definition for that property.  E.g. the 
> > definition for 'displayname' says "This property is live and MAY 
> > be protected."
> 
> Agreed. We should close this after the next draft is submitted and 
> everybody had a chance to look at it (unless it didn't change since 
> -03 in case we can do that right now).
> 
> > BACKGROUND "It would be helpful to note which specifications are 
> > considered to be necessary background reading for reading the 
> > WebDAV spec."  Unless somebody comes up with specific suggestions 
> > what references to add, let's CLOSE this issue.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > NULL_RESOURCE: "Add a forward reference ... in the definition of 
> > Null Resource in the Terminology section."  This definition is 
> > now gone, so the issue should be resolved REJECTED.
> 
> Agreed (note that the Terminology section indeed defines "null 
resource").
> 
> > CONSISTENCY:  The issue is described as "Disagreement over 
> > whether a DAV URI namespace needs to be consistent."  Roy 
> > suggested 
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1998OctDec/0155
> > .html> removing the following definition from RFC2518:
> >    "An HTTP URL namespace is said to be consistent if it meets the
> >    following conditions: for every URL in the HTTP hierarchy there
> >    exists a collection that contains that URL as an internal member."
> > However, consistency is not a requirement.  RFC2518 goes on:
> >    "Neither HTTP/1.1 nor WebDAV require that the entire HTTP URL 
> >    namespace be consistent.  However, certain WebDAV methods are 
> >    prohibited from producing results that cause namespace 
> >    inconsistencies."
> > To proceed on this issue, somebody who agrees that there is a 
> > problem here needs to suggest new wording, since we can't simply 
> > remove the definition without rewriting or removing the next few 
> > paragraphs and the definitions of some methods.  If nobody 
> > suggests new wording or explains why we need to remove a 
> > definition that isn't even a requirement, I suggest we keep it 
> > the way it is and resolve the issue CLOSED.  (We can always 
> > reopen an issue if somebody later decides to propose something 
concrete.)
> 
> I think 5.1 is sufficiently clear, so mark this one as closed.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 07:49:14 GMT

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