RE: Why not an encapsulation for DAV over standard HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 without required server extension ?

On Fri, 25 May 2001, Jim Whitehead wrote:

> For example, I'll note that people in W3C working groups feel no compulsion
> to answer random questions from newbies questioning 4 year old design
> decisions. Think about it.

[Thinks about it... Tries to get annoyed... fails...]

Thanks for the thoughtful sideswipe Jim! I might add that people in W3C
working groups always decide things in secret unminuted meetings, are
the happless pawns of industry tyrants, and plot to undermine the plucky
freedom loving IETF groups at every opportunity. There, the secret's
out.


"people in W3C working groups" vary, as do the working habits of those
groups.  Only some of us are evil. Some of us are also people in IETF
WGs...

All I know is that when I try to answer questions from newbies asking
about 4-year old design decisions (eg. RDF), it's not through
"compulsion" but through common sense and (mailbox overload
permitting) common politeness. And when I fail to manage the same, more
likely its not because I'm on a W3C group, but because I'm human...

While I could pass the time bickering amiably about W3C and IETF, it
might nore interesting to try to get something more productive done. How
about we revisit the old "how do WebDAV and RDF work together" faq? I've
been hearing some nice things about Delta-V lately, maybe we could take
that as practical application where RDF and WebDAV could be shown
working together? As a minimum, I'd like to try to get a student project
or two looking at building some prototypes. What do you reckon?

Dan

--
industry pawn
http://purl.org/net/danbri/

Received on Friday, 25 May 2001 18:01:29 UTC