W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: Appropriate partial success codes (was Re: Some questions about WebDAV)

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:19:07 -0700
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BF7ADF0B.55F09%fluffy@cisco.com>

On 10/18/05 5:06 AM, "Geoffrey M Clemm" <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> I agree that this should be removed from the draft text until we have
> consensus that this resolves some significant issue (and like Julian,
> I have not seen a compelling argument that it does).

I have no opinion if this should be there or not and I'm fine if we come to
agreement to remove it. I have fairly good notes from the call and well, no
real point in going there. Needless to say, if we come to agreement on the
list that is the important thing.
> And I agree that changes should not be made to the current draft until there
> is at least consensus on the mailing list that there is a well-defined issue
> that needs to be addressed.

Clearly there is a well define basic issue - the spec if not clear enough on
what implementers should do and/or wrong. That is the main reason we are
doing a bis. We all agree on this. I suspect the author thought this text
was a small clarification to help on this basic issue.

If an author tried to put in some text that they thought would be agreeable
to group to try and make the draft better - well it depends, hopefully big
things they would get WG input on then take a stab at fixing. On small
things they would just fix. It is a judgment call on if something is small
or large. They author will not always get this judgment call right and we as
a group will fix it.

I just don't see how we can finish if the author can't change the document.


> Cheers, 
> Geoff 
> Julian wrote on 10/17/2005 05:35:40 PM:
>> Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>> Do you really think this should be removed from the final RFC? On the call
>>> the other day I though you were going to do some testing and come up with
>>> some modifications for this text?
>> No, I think this is a misunderstanding. I really feel this text is both
>> misleading, and doesn't resolve any issue I'm aware of.
>> I'd really like all of us to agree on the approach not to make any
>> changes in the original spec unless we have a well-defined issue, and
>> working group consensus how to resolve it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>> Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2005 00:19:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:33 UTC