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

Re: Review of RFC2518bis pre-draft

From: Elias Sinderson <elias@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 14:46:07 -0800
Message-ID: <439A092F.6090806@cse.ucsc.edu>
To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
CC: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

Julian Reschke wrote:

> 3. Terminology
> Inconsistent typography (":" vs "-")


> "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.


> 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


> 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.

Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 22:47:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:01:34 UTC