- From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:49:29 -0700
- To: "'Andre van der Hoek'" <andre@bigtime.cs.colorado.edu>
- Cc: "'Andre van der Hoek'" <andre@serl.cs.colorado.edu>, "'Martin J. D?rst'" <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>, "'Judith Slein'" <slein@wrc.xerox.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
We can't have a conversation where everyone is using the same word to mean different things. I have defined what the term variant means in HTTP. If you use the word variant, in a HTTP working group, it is expected that you will use it to mean what it means in HTTP. If you are referring to a concept other than the one meant by HTTP, please use another term. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Andre van der Hoek [SMTP:andre@bigtime.cs.colorado.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 1997 12:38 PM > To: Yaron Goland > Cc: 'Andre van der Hoek'; 'Martin J. Dürst'; 'Judith Slein'; > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > Subject: Re: New Requirements Draft > > > In so far as I am concerned a variant is simply "yet another > version" > > and requires no special handling outside of the normal versioning > > mechanisms. > > And the body of literature I just pointed you to says exactly the > opposite: > variants handling requires special constructs and variants are not > "simply > just another version". > > > As for your assertion Andre, that if web sites had proper variant > tools > > they would use them, this would contradict your previous statement > that > > variant support is widespread through versioning systems. Most major > > versioning systems hook directly into the Internet, so apparently > > variant support isn't so terribly important. > > No contradiction whatsoever. There are namely two ways CM systems hook > into > the web: > > * they have some applet or HTTP FORMS thingy that allows their CM > policy to > be enforced. This is totally orthogonal to what WebDAV is trying > to do. > * they manage a set of web pages by some simple extension to the > URL > mechanism. Given the limited power of URL's, variants handling is > totally > out of the question (and so are lots of other CM processes etc). > > Thus, the problem of making variants explicit in HTTP, and adding it > as a > primitive to the protocol has not been solved yet, and that is what > WebDAV > should be addressing. > > > Let us be clear on the issue, variant supports means creating > mechanisms > > which allow for a client to instruct a server on how it should > handle > > accept headers. I believe this to be a server configuration issue > and > > out of scope for WebDAV. > > Well, this is your opinion. I believe Judith, Martin, and I have a > compeltely different definition of variants, and I believe WebDAV > should at least address the issues we raise. > > === Andre === >
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 1997 15:50:57 UTC