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

Re: precondition naming [was Re: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt]

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 15:36:00 -0500
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9DDD8C9B.980A5359-ON85256F72.0070DC0F-05256F72.00712966@us.ibm.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:51 UTC