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

[Bug 181] error element

From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:10:16 -0800
Message-Id: <200512310010.jBV0AG78015318@ietf.cse.ucsc.edu>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=181





------- Additional Comments From lisa@osafoundation.org  2005-12-30 16:10 -------
I can't follow the reasons for all the changes in that document, so it's hard
for me to tell what your (Julian's) intent is with the changes.  I don't like
having all the normative text in section 8.1.5 -- that section was intended to
be an introduction to the topic and has gotten out of hand.  I'd like to leave
that as an introduction because section 8.1 is already a large enough digression
from the actual methods we discuss in the rest of section 8.  Other comments:

 - This text proposed is inconsistent with issues you've raised before, with
regards to making 403 and 409 the only allowed error codes.
 - the last paragraph in your proposal for section 8.1.5 is redundant with
earlier text
 - Some of the changes (e.g. in section 8.2) are unrelated to this issue
 - The guidance on creating one's own error codes was seemingly removed
 - Some of the error code sections (from 8.2 to 8.12) were reorganized but
others remained organized differently.  I haven't adopted these changes, is
there some reason for them?
 - I don't agree that we should list the preconditions/postconditions without
suggesting what status code to use with. I find the formatting I've been using
clearer than that of the proposed change.

I'm making a number of modifications to the draft based on these proposals but
I'm sure we'll have to iterate.



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Saturday, 31 December 2005 00:10:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:12 GMT