W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: Editorial ISSUE REMOVE_19.6

From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 17:38:41 -0700
Message-Id: <aff9aaf30c02100404d9@[]>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/3841
>We plan to remove section 19.6, "19.6 Additional Features "
>which is part of the appendix (i.e. this is non-normative material currently
>in the specification).

I support this.  The WEBDAV working group has requirements for providing
partial resource updates and for the creation, deletion, modification and
access of typed links between resources.  The latest protocol draft, which
was submitted to the Internet-drafts editor on Friday, details a PATCH
method, and a mechanism for creating links using a general-purpose facility
for defining properties on resources.  The WEBDAV proposals differ from the
definitions in Section 19.6 of RFC 2068.  Since WEBDAV is currently working
on these items, it makes sense to me to remove Section 19.6.

Some brief comments:

>The grounds for removing this section include:
>        1) there are no known implementations

The NTT, Palo Alto group has produced an implementation of LINK, UNLINK,
and the Link header.  However, to the best of my knowledge, this is not a
production server, but rather a research testbed.  Since they have been
actively tracking the WEBDAV working group, I suspect they would be
comfortable moving to the WEBDAV interface and semantics for links.

>        2) the WEBDAV group is working in this area, and documenting
>different, and incomplete functions, is a bad idea.

I agree.

>        3) there are known problems with some of the proposals: e.g. Link
>sytax does not quite seem to be what the HTML group needs for
>enabling server setting of sytle sheets; its grammar is suspect.  I've
>suggested to Dan Connolly that Link progress as a separate (very short)
>Internet Draft to proposed standard with whatever they need, and hopefully

Since WEBDAV is developing a mechanism for links, I'm not sure what the
value of a separate I-D would be.

- Jim Whitehead
Received on Monday, 21 July 1997 17:40:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:03 UTC