- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:04:59 -0400
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
- Cc: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Actually, I tend to be of the other camp. I feel the spec should avoid UI
imperatives if possible, the spec is clear enough about what the possible
negative repercusions of this UI approach are, and if a client wants to
experiment at the UI level, let them... as long as they comply at the
protocol level. (I assume Msft complies at the protocol level, but I
haven't verified that.)
I don't feel strongly though and will go with the flow.
J
------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
"Clemm, Geoff"
<gclemm@Rational. To: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: RE: displayname vs. Microsoft webfolders
w3c-dist-auth-req
uest@w3.org
04/21/2002 12:22
PM
I agree.
Cheers,
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
we just noticed the following bug in Microsoft's web folder implementation:
when displaying the contents of a collection, it will use (when present)
the
DAV:displayname property as internal member name. Furthermore, the URI
displayed in the "tabular view" will use the collection's URI + the
displayname to build the member's URI.
This is obviously wrong, because there's no guarantee that the individual
DAV.displayname values in a property are distinct.
IMHO, the RFC2518 revision should say:
"User agents MUST not use the DAV:displayname to identify the individual
collection members (because the value may not be unique across the members
of a collection). However, they MAY use it to display additional
information
about a collection member".
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2002 17:06:23 UTC