- From: Judith Slein <slein@wrc.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 07:04:40 PST
- To: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
At 08:43 PM 2/6/97 PST, Yaron Goland wrote: >Judith, why does all of your mail come from >w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org? I have no idea. Stuff from the mailing list always gets routed to me through w3c-dist-auth-request as well. > >1. If we decide that we want to try to stay within the HTTP framework, >can >we try to model our spec on the HTTP 1.1 spec? We could still keep the >functional divisions we have in the current spec, but within each >division, >assume HTTP request and response syntax and have a section on new >methods, a >section on new status codes, and a section on new headers. Hopefully >there >wouldn't be any new MIME types, but if there are, then a section on new >MIME >types; and if there are any new name spaces, a section discussing them. > >The previous proposal only makes sense if we are going to continue using >bodies w/methods. If we intend to switch to a header only format then we >will be required to use method specific headers and those should clearly >not be in a section separate from the method definitions. What is the >group's feelings on the issue of body vs headers? I favor headers, and don't have a strong feeling about where they should be defined. > >3. Add a section on why this spec is needed anyway. > >I disagree. If the use of the protocol is not self evident then it is a >badly designed protocol. I do think such a section is extremely useful. I've been looking through attribute-related specs the past few days, and I've been very grateful to authors who say on the first page what problems they are trying to address, so that I don't have to read the rest of the spec if their problem set is different from mine. > >As for your other points, I basically agree. The current spec is a mess >but that was to be expected. The authors severely screwed up their >scheduling and didn't give themselves enough time to prepare the spec >before the meeting. We shall not repeat that error. > You did a huge amount of work, and I'm sure no one faults you for not having a polished, watertight spec in time for the Irvine meeting. Thanks for all you've done! --Judy Name: Judith A. Slein E-Mail: slein@wrc.xerox.com Internal Phone: 8*222-5169 External Phone: (716) 422-5169 Fax: (716) 265-7133 MailStop: 128-29E
Received on Friday, 7 February 1997 10:02:39 UTC