- From: Elias Sinderson <elias@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:46:07 -0800
- To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
- CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> 3. Terminology
> Inconsistent typography (":" vs "-")
Fixed.
> "A URI mapping can be thought of as a URL pointing to a resource."
> I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Please remove it or clarify.
Removed.
> 7.6 Write Locks and Unmapped URLs
>
> A successful lock request to an unmapped URL MUST result in the
> creation of an locked resource with empty content. Subsequently, a
> successful PUT request (with the correct lock token) provides the
> content for the resource, and the server MUST also use the content-
> type and content-language information from this request.
>
> Making this a MUST creates a conflict with an upcoming TAG finding by
> Roy Fielding.
Discussion needed; created new bugzilla issue.
> 8.2.6 Example - Using 'allprop' to Retrieve Dead Properties and
> RFC2518 Properties
>
> Nits:
> - move it back where it was in RFC2518
> - avoid the term RFC2158 properties in the title
Renamed; brief explanatory note added.
> - XML in example to be fixed, for instance whitespace in
> D:getlastmodified
Fixed the example. However, since DAV:get* properties are based upon
definitions made in rfc2616, LWS may be found in some implementations --
explanatory text added to section 14.
> - intra-doc reference to Section 13 is incorrect
Fixed.
> 8.3.1 [...] (2nd sentence) Again, this is correct, but
> a) doesn't really need to be mentioned,
> b) but if is mentioned, then using MUST is incorrect here. [...]
2nd sentence left in, with MUST removed.
> 8.7 DELETE [...] This is still a lame way to introduce DELETE. [...]
> 8.9.5 Status Codes [...] 403 (Forbidden) [...] Confusing. Servers may
> treat this as a nop, just returning 200. Just be silent about it.
Discussed this but left the text in, as the semantics were defined in
2518 (see similar comment below).
> 8.10.4 Status Codes
> 204 (No Content) - [...] Sentence broken [...]
Rewrote text to clarify 204 and 201.
> 403 (Forbidden) [...] And being source and destination identical
> would be a problem exactly why?
Semantics defined in 2518, left alone as a change could compromise
resource identity (e.g. creation date may change, corruption of version
history, etc.).
> 12.1 Response headers [...] This section doesn't provide any useful
> information. In particular, the second sentence seems to be completely
> out of context.
Rewrote this section (originally added following discussion of issue
47). Second sentence has been removed.
> 12.2 URL handling [...]
Rewrote most of this section, incorporating some of your proposed text,
and paying attention to RFC3986 language -- please review.
> 12.3 Handling redirected child resources [...] Sounds like "We don't
> care what servers do".
After some discussion, we now care and have rewritten the last sentence.
> 19.7 Risks Connected with Lock Tokens [...]
Proposed text inserted with a couple of tweaks (title of RFC, version /
variant language, and minor wordsmithing introducing the list).
> 22.1 Normative References [...]
Reference to 2518 moved to informative references.
Cheers,
Elias
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 22:47:51 UTC