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

Re: Condition names, was: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:50:12 -0800
Message-Id: <49455BF2-5851-11D9-981D-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>

I generally agree that specification writers should re-use terminology 
consistently -- great sentiment.  However that isn't even what we're 
talking about here.
  - This isn't a case of re-using any terminology -- the issue is a set 
of new error codes with a different naming style.
  - We could go for a consistent style with RFC3253, however I found the 
RFC3253 style confusing and prefer the quota style as-is
  - The style used in the quota draft is consistent with RFC2616 style 
of describing errors in text.   E.g. HTTP generally describes the error 
("NOT FOUND") rather than the precondition ("RESOURCE MUST EXIST").

So it's RFC3253 that made the departure in style.

Lisa

On Dec 24, 2004, at 9:06 AM, Elias Sinderson wrote:

>
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> I'm convinced that re-using RFC3253 terminology in an inconsistent 
>> way is a Very Bad Idea [...]
>
> Reusing /any/ terminology in an inconsistent way is a bad idea -- it 
> leads to confusion among implementors, makes the ensuing discussions 
> overly cumbersome, etc.
>
>
> Elias
>
Received on Monday, 27 December 2004 21:50:30 UTC

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