- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 10:08:39 +0200
- To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>
- Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
I don't think this a good idea. The W3C has decided to treat link roles as URIs. If we decide to define a different mechanism, we will sooner or later have to define a mapping of XLink role URIs to our role schema (because other systems with which a WebDAv server connect may have decided to use standard Xlink roles). Furthermore this brings *us* into the business of defining roles (I think the spec should only define a mechanism to marshall them, that's it). Julian -----Original Message----- From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason Crawford Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 12:06 AM To: Clemm, Geoff Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED I've made a proposal in the following post... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002AprJun/0141.html There have been several suggestions. I'd like to focus on one of them. The suggestion is the suggestion to make the role be a tag rather than an attribute. The justification was that this could allow for structured roles. That actually sounds good to me in principle, but I'd like to make sure we're actually likely to capitalize on it. Could someone suggest some roles that they'd like to see. Also if you can think of any *structured* roles, please put them on the table so that we can at least see how that might work. Thanks, J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Sunday, 30 June 2002 04:08:46 UTC