W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2004

Re: quota-03 spec review, was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-03.txt

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:48:26 -0700
Message-Id: <AC992236-FD10-11D8-BF77-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
To: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>

>>
>> 02-C01 Condition Name
>>
>> Use name of precondition, not failure description: 
>> <quota-not-exceeded/> instead of <storage-quota-reached/>
>
> Unless anyone objects, I'll make that change.
>

I do object (but not to the point of delaying quota).  My reasoning is 
that using the negative, to express the condition that must be met, is 
hard to understand for the debugger/implementor/tester or support 
person.  You see something like this:

<D:error>
   <D:quota-not-exceeded/>
</D:error>

and think "Huh?  My error is that quota is not exceeded? what's up with 
that? "  I can even imagine bugs logged against implementors who 
correctly follow the spec.

Furthermore, although this approach is consistent with the style in 
DeltaV, it's not consistent with the overall HTTP error style, which is 
to explain the error.  E.g. "404 Not Found" rather than "404 Document 
Must Exist".

Lisa
Received on Thursday, 2 September 2004 18:48:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:06 GMT