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

RE: New RFC2518bis draft

From: Lisa Dusseault <ldusseault@xythos.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:16:56 -0400
Message-ID: <27889B08CAEC7049B68FAD8717BA6017371BA3@ATL1VEXC006.usdom004.tco.tc>
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
> 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.

Received on Sunday, 7 July 2002 14:17:42 UTC

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