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: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:54:29 +0100
Message-Id: <77A70CFA-58B6-11D9-AA55-00039384827E@greenbytes.de>
Cc: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

Are you proposing to change RFC 3253 to get a consistent terminology?

Am 27.12.2004 um 22:50 schrieb Lisa Dusseault:

>
> 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 Tuesday, 28 December 2004 09:55:33 UTC

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