- From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 15:56:24 -0800
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52
ejw@cs.ucsc.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|joe-bugzilla@cursive.net |lisa@osafoundation.org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
------- Additional Comments From ejw@cs.ucsc.edu 2005-12-09 15:56 -------
It's unclear what the correct semantics are here. The latest draft takes a whack
at this in the definition of creationdate -- feedback is most welcome.
The general idea is that servers that cannot persistently store creationdate
should just not report this property at all (i.e., report it "Not Found").
Some other possibilities are:
* report an empty XML element (fear that clients won't handle this well)
* use an arbitrary time in the past (magic number, such as January 1, 1900) as a
convention
* report the current time
The last two are perceived to likely work well with clients that, despite the
warnings in the specification, still try to use creationdate for synchronization.
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 23:56:31 UTC