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

RE: Review of ordering draft, version 05

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:30:17 +0100
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCMEKAGHAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:24 AM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Webdav WG'
> Subject: RE: Review of ordering draft, version 05
>
>
>
> I still feel strongly that postconditions (and ideally also
> preconditions) should be explained as full English sentences
>
> For example, replace
>
>   "(DAV:ordering-type-set): the collection was created with the
> specified ordering type. "

(that *is* a full sentence, isn't it?)

> With
>
>   "(DAV:ordering-type-set): The server MUST set the ordering-type
>   property on the new resource to the value specified in the
> Ordering-Type
>   header by the client. If it cannot, this error should be used."

I agree that the condition itself can be expressed in a more stringent
manner. However, I strongly disagree with the second sentence: all
pre/postconditions are MUSTs (by definition), and therefore the statement is
(a) redundant and (b) - for consistency - it would have to be repeated on
each an every condition.

> I will propose specific text for every postcondition if necessary.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 04:30:51 GMT

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