- From: Dan Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 09:43:40 -0700
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Just for clarity, given the timing of various responses: I'm squarely with Geoff and Julian on this one: we should redefine (well, clarify) DAV:ALLPROP as Julian suggests and not do any deprecation. dan On Sunday, July 7, 2002, at 05:00 PM, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] > >> From: Lisa Dusseault >> >> 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. > > Advantage: this is the current situation with RFC3253 and the ACL > spec, and this doesn't seem to cause any confusion at all. All we > need is to clarify RFC2518. > > I agree that the name "allprop" will be a bit confusing. But that's > something that can be solved by properly explaining it, right? > > I agree. I have little concern over any confusion resulting from the > name "DAV:allprop". The concept of "all dead properties plus 2518 > defined properties" is very simple, and should be easy to convey. And > even if an implementor gets it wrong and returns some (or all) > non-2518 live properties as well, little or no harm is done. > >> 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. > > I think this disadvantage significantly outweighs the minor benefits > of a slightly better name for this concept. > >> 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. > > Yes, but at greatly increased cost, both in number of roundtrips, > client > complexity and computation time in the server. I've explained this in > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist- > auth/2002JanMar/0186.html>: > > I agree that it is valuable to have a simple mechanism for retrieving > all dead properties in one request (especially for a non-zero Depth > PROPFIND), and I agree that using DAV:allprop is the most interoperable > mechanism for providing this mechanism. > > Cheers, > Geoff >
Received on Monday, 8 July 2002 12:44:12 UTC