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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:50:42 +0100
Message-ID: <41D09FD2.5030407@gmx.de>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

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:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 27 December 2004 23:51:20 UTC

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