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: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:57:56 -0800
Message-Id: <00CDFD4A-58FA-11D9-981D-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>

No, I certainly don't think that changing 3253 is necessary or even 
desirable.  Nor do I think it's necessary or desirable to block quota 
on this issue, no matter which way the draft has it.

(and to be pedantic, it's not a consistency of terminology, it's a 
consistency of naming style)

Lisa

On Dec 28, 2004, at 1:54 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote:

> 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 17:58:14 UTC

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