RE: displayname vs. Microsoft webfolders

There are two possible issues here:

The first is a UI issue, namely whether a client displays the URI segment
(which is guaranteed to be unique) or the DAV:displayname (which is not
guaranteed to be unique, but is likely to be more human meaningful).
I agree with Jason that we should make no statement about what the client
does wrt display to the user (in particular, I think a sensible GUI may
well chose the DAV:displayname over the segment name as the value to display
to the user).

The second is a protocol issue, namely, does a client assume it can use
the DAV:displayname as an "alternative segment name" to identify the
resource
(i.e. it can use that display name to compose a URL for that resource).
This is blatantly wrong.  I assumed Julian was encountering the latter
situation, and that is what I agreed with disallowing ... Julian?

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 5:05 PM
To: Clemm, Geoff
Cc: WebDAV
Subject: RE: displayname vs. Microsoft webfolders



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 19:00:33 UTC