I also do not recall a show-of-hands request on this topic, but if there had been one, I would have said that no compelling case has been made to diverge from the conventions of RFC3253, and therefore those conventions should be maintained. Cheers, Geoff Julian wrote on 12/22/2004 03:27:48 PM: > > Brian Korver wrote: > >> Use name of precondition, not failure description: > >> <quota-not-exceeded/> instead of <storage-quota-reached/>. > > > > > > There was no clear consensus when I asked for a show of hands on the list > > on whether this change was desired/required. > > I can't recall you asking; but I'm sure you can point to a message in > the mailing list archive? > > Anyway, *I* recall that you agreed to change it > (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/0107.html>) > and the only disagreement came from Lisa (in > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/0109.html>, > but she said she didn't want to delay the draft because of that). > > That being said: you are re-using terminology and syntax from RFC3253 in > a slighty incompatible way. Thus, I think it's reasonable to ask *you* > to show that there is consensus for introducing this inconsistency.
Received on Wednesday, 22 December 2004 20:36:34 UTC