Re: Should I use displayname?

I don't understand what the problem is.  The client can use the displayname
to store some user-interpretable name for a resource that is independent of
the binding, so that the user can tell that these two URLs apply to the same
resource (they probably won't look at resourceID).  For example, the client
could parse the <title> out of an HTML document and store it there.  If you
default the display name to the last segment of the URL, then things can get
confusing as you point out.  It's up to the client to do something useful
here.

--Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Whitehead <ejw@ics.uci.edu>
To: <ccjason@us.ibm.com>; Rickard Falk <rickard.falk@excosoft.se>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: Should I use displayname?


> Jason writes:
> > Note: in the presence of multiple bindings, if the server initializes it
> > to the URI and treats it as a dead property, that URI might be different
> > from the URI from which it was accessed.
>
> Hmm, since properties are part of the state of the resource, in the
presence
> of bindings it is more than possible for there to be multiple URI names
for
> the same "display name".  This removes the value of the displayname
> property.  Some solutions:
>
> 1) move displayname to the collection, and have the collection maintain
> displayname/binding pairs (this solution seems icky to me)
>
> 2) deprecate displayname, and only use URIs for display to the user, and
> concentrate on i18n support for URIs.
>
> - Jim
>
>

Received on Friday, 21 January 2000 18:48:29 UTC