W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: displayname vs. Microsoft webfolders

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>
Message-ID: <OF243A9F6B.FA8E94EF-ON85256BA2.0072CDDC@pok.ibm.com>

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.


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                                      
                      04/21/2002 12:22                                                                                                 

I agree.


-----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)
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
about a collection member".
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2002 17:06:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:25 UTC