Re: Comment on -01.1 document structure
Jim Whitehead (ejw@ics.uci.edu)
Mon, 24 May 1999 14:27:42 -0700
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: Edgar Schwarz <Edgar.Schwarz@de.bosch.com>,
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 14:27:42 -0700
Message-ID: <004b01bea62c$41a8b5a0$d115c380@ics.uci.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GHP.4.05.9905191058300.1092-100000@hpmx15.bk.bosch.de>
Subject: RE: Comment on -01.1 document structure
Edgar Schwarz wrote:
> I don't know whether there is some meta standard how a standard document
> should be structured.
> But nevertheless, when I read the draft I saw some definitions of terms
> (data structures, objects) at the beginning. Followed by methods working
> on these objects. This is a functional decomposition. Wouldn't it
> be clearer to give the objects together with the methods it allows ?
> This would make it easier to compare e.g. the subtle differences between
> configuration and baseline.
> In my experience OO isn't all hype (but also no silver bullet) so I would
> try to start it already at this stage. Also there are e.g. OSI standards
> which are also (sort of) OO.
> Just a thought :-)
Well, one rationale for the current document format is "tradition" -- we're
trying to duplicate the style and organization of the HTTP/1.1 and WebDAV
specifications. Since there is a large body of people who have read these
specifications, and are comfortable with their organization, warts and all,
changing organization late in the game is not something to do lightly.
Getting away from tradition, I think the current organization has some
strengths. Since the intent of HTTP/DAV/DELTA-V is to define operations
which, as much as possible, behave the same across different types of
objects (and by type I mean ordinary resource, collection resource, redirect
resource, search arbiter, etc.), the emphasis on method definitions, rather
than object definitions, is appropriate.
- Jim