- 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: http://www.rddl.org/#role 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, right? -----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 Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED << 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 questions. << 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). >> 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 WebDAV? ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 19:29:04 UTC