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

RE: Using If and not failing

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 17:05:22 -0800
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@rational.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <00b601c2ca57$29921440$f876fea9@xythoslap>


> >  - Dan Brotsky saw these proposals and still felt strongly 
> that a much
> > more simple approach was necessary for long-term interoperability.
> 
> I'd like to hear that directly from him, not as hear-say. In 
> particular, it
> would be nice if the group of client programmers that thinks 
> that there *is*
> an issue would actually sit down and try how the proposed usage of the
> existing If header turns out to work.

Please see:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002OctDec/0118.html

> >  - Confusion on whether multiple lists are ANDed together 
> (tagged list)
> > or ORed together (no-tag)
> 
> Could you please explain the nature of the problem?

Section 9.4.1, No-tag-list production:

"If multiple No-tag-list productions are used then one only needs to
match the state of the resource for the method to be allowed to
continue." 

Conclusion: multiple untagged lists only one needs to match --> OR

Section 9.4.2, Tagged-list Production:

"When the If header is applied to a particular resource, the Tagged-
list productions MUST be searched to determine if any of the listed
resources match the operand resource(s) for the current method. If none
of the resource productions match the current resource then the header
MUST be ignored. If one of the resource productions does match the name
of the resource under consideration then the list productions following
the resource production MUST be applied to the resource in the manner
specified in the previous section. "

Conclusion: multiple tagged lists each needs to match --> AND

Note that in the previous quoted paragraphs, the part about ignoring
clauses will be removed if we continue by our previous consensus.

One of your proposals:
> 1) allow comma separated notation for tagged lists (to 
> workaround proxy
> limitations)

This completely breaks the syntax of the header for clients sending
requests to servers that don't immediately support 2518bis.  Clients
wouldn't actually be able to use commas for years because there is
currently no way to see if a server supports 2518bis.  I'm pointing this
out because if we decide to do this, we have to be clear on
understanding it's not going to be very useful for a long time.

Lisa
Received on Saturday, 1 February 2003 20:05:22 GMT

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