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 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 12 October 2007 17:53:22 GMT