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


From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 01:28:39 +0200
To: "Jason Crawford" <ccjason@us.ibm.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCGEPJENAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Not exactly the WebDAV community in total, but the subset of it actively
working on fixing RFC2518.

Regarding role URIs: yes, I'd expect this: see, for instance:


BTW: just because a role is identified by a URI, it doesn't need to be
opaque. For instance, the role URI may identify a HTTP-GETtable resource in
a specific format. There's a reason why the ACL spec identifies principals
by URI instead of marshalling all principal information in each PROPFIND,
  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Jason Crawford
  Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:17 AM
  To: Julian Reschke
  Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org

  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).
  I assume Geoff or others will respond to this and hopefully also to my

  Furthermore this brings *us* into the
  business of defining roles (I think the spec should only define a
  to marshall them, that's it).
  By *US* I take it you mean the WebDAV community. Is it your view that some
  non-WebDAV entity will end up defining XLink roles that are also
pertainent to

  Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 19:29:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:26 UTC