Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > 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. With both a naming and usage style that is inconsistent with the spec that introduced the syntax. If you don't want to use it consistently, *please* don't use it at all. > - We could go for a consistent style with RFC3253, however I found the > RFC3253 style confusing and prefer the quota style as-is We know that, but as far as I can tell everybody except you and Brian clearly disagrees. > - 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"). Lisa, we're not talking about HTTP status codes, but about condition names used inside the DAV:error element defined in RFC3253. > So it's RFC3253 that made the departure in style. You may argue that, but in that case the right way to approach the issue is not to re-use RFC3253's syntax at all. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760Received on Monday, 27 December 2004 23:51:20 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 October 2007 17:53:22 GMT