RE: v6: 7.1 allprop and propname

Now Jim, be nice, saying things are silly just makes folks get all riled up.
In this case what you have found is a typo. Somebody was clearly typing too
late at night and screwed up.

I have changed the paragraph to what it was originally meant to say:

	In the case of allprop and propname, if a principal does not have
the right to know if a particular property exists then the property should
be silently excluded from the response.

The reason why I say "should" and don't capitalize it is that the server
should have the maximum flexibility in how it handles this type of
situation. The point of the sentence is just a friendly note to the
implementer that they don't have to feel required to return even the name of
a property which the client isn't supposed to know about.

			Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Jim Davis [SMTP:jdavis@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent:	Saturday, January 24, 1998 1:29 PM
> To:	w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject:	v6: 7.1 allprop and propname
> 
> 7.1 says "In the case of allprop and propname, if a principal does not
> have
> the right to know if a particular property exists then a a 404 Not Found
> MUST be returned"
> 
> This is silly, as it reveals more information about the hidden property
> than simply being silent.  This response is correct when the caller
> explicitly provided a property name, but not for allprop and propname.
> The
> v5 spec said that allprop and propname returned only those props the
> principal had access to, and we should revert to that definition.

Received on Saturday, 24 January 1998 19:54:28 UTC