- From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@xythos.com>
- Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:16:56 -0400
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>, <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> Lisa: I noticed that you did not respond to Julian's concern > about deprecating DAV:allprop. Does this mean that you agree with > his proposal to have it mean "2518 properties and all dead properties"? > Note that I am happy to have DAV:allprop be given this interpretation. With an issue as difficult as "allprop", where it was originally given a meaning that we cannot continue to support, I do not believe that every concern can be completely addressed. I think all of Julian's concerns are valid and share them, yet we still have to compromise among these concerns to find a solution. The proposed text in 2518 bis does deprecate allprop as well as redefine it to a certain extent. If 'allprop' is redefined, without being renamed or deprecated, it will cause confusion for new implementors. Here are some of the options: 1) Deprecate. 2) Redefine and leave in place. Disadvantage: confusion to new implementers who will be misled by the apparent meaning of 'allprop' into misunderstanding what it does. 3) Rename and redefine (e.g. 'deadprop', defined to return all the dead properties). Disadvantage: servers that were previously compliant with 2518 will not be compliant with 2518bis. No functionality is lost by deprecating allprop - clients can always use the 'propname' request to find all the dead and live property names, and select among those. I'd like to see broader support for one of the other options and discussion of the tradeoffs before changing the current proposed text. lisa
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2002 14:17:42 UTC