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

Re: [Bug 12] Destination header "consistent"

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:27:23 -0700
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
CC: WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BF85972B.57A78%fluffy@cisco.com>

On 10/22/05 11:42 AM, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:

> Yes, as a matter of fact I think it's a bad thing. We are revising
> RFC2518, which to me means
> 
> - fixing bugs (examples, typos)
> - removing stuff nobody does implement (such as DAV:propertybehaviour)
> - simplify things that were too complex in the first place (lock-null
> resources come to mind)
> - removing stuff that's not need today anymore (XML namespace
> explanations, UUID generation instructions...)
> - update references
> - add stuff that we agree was missing (DAV:lockroot...)
> 
> This may not be complete, but it should cover most cases.

We are also clarifying the Spec so that implementers end up implementing
versions that do interoperate.

> 
> Just adding prose without no actual need for it IMHO is a bad idea. Do
> that in FAQs, Blogs, online resources, implementor guides, books, whatever.

There is a fine line here. Someone skill in the art should be able to
correctly implement this by just reading the Spec and the documents it
normatively references. That does not mean we should right a basic tutorial
on how it all works or the sort of material that might be covered in WebDAV
book. It's a fine line to draw, but I tend to ask myself, if your average
implementer has a 20% chance of doing the wrong thing, you probably need
more advice or notes to keep them on the right path.

That is my somewhat philosophic answer, however, I have a far more pragmatic
thing you should keep in mind. The IESG has to read this, and if it makes no
sense to them, pain and suffering will ensue. This does not mean just the
apps ADs with an amazing background in the area has to read it, it means
that someone from a completely different area (say security) has to read it,
and understand it well enough to evaluate if it has significant issues. And
they are unlikely to read FAQs, Blogs etc because they are too busy.

In the case you are taking about here, I have no idea what the right line is
and I'm not supporting Lisa's or Julian's or anyone else opinion on it. I'm
just pointing out that this is not black or white but is one of the many
things where the WG will have to find some sort of reasonable balance.
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2005 03:40:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT