RE: Issues and status, WRITE_DAV_PROP, BACKGROUND, NULL_RESOURCE, CONSISTENCY

Sorry, I was sufficiently clear which were changed in 03.  The null resource definition will be deleted in draft 04 -- I only got around to that recently.  All the other changes were made in 03 and I currently do not have plans to change that text in 04.

Obviously I'm working on 04 this weekend.  I plan to submit the draft by the draft deadline if not before.  

Lisa

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
> Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 11:33 AM
> To: Lisa Dusseault; Jason Crawford; Webdav WG
> Subject: RE: Issues and status, WRITE_DAV_PROP, BACKGROUND, 
> NULL_RESOURCE, CONSISTENCY
> 
> 
> > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> > Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 7:26 PM
> > To: Jason Crawford; Webdav WG
> > Subject: Issues and status, WRITE_DAV_PROP, BACKGROUND, 
> NULL_RESOURCE, 
> > CONSISTENCY
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > WRITE_DAV_PROP:  This issue is at least addressed in RFC2518bis,
> > if not completely closed.  It was addressed separately for each 
> > property in the definition for that property.  E.g. the 
> > definition for 'displayname' says "This property is live and MAY 
> > be protected."
> 
> Agreed. We should close this after the next draft is 
> submitted and everybody had a chance to look at it (unless it 
> didn't change since -03 in case we can do that right now).
> 
> > BACKGROUND "It would be helpful to note which specifications are
> > considered to be necessary background reading for reading the 
> > WebDAV spec."  Unless somebody comes up with specific suggestions 
> > what references to add, let's CLOSE this issue.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > NULL_RESOURCE: "Add a forward reference ... in the definition of
> > Null Resource in the Terminology section."  This definition is 
> > now gone, so the issue should be resolved REJECTED.
> 
> Agreed (note that the Terminology section indeed defines 
> "null resource").
> 
> > CONSISTENCY:  The issue is described as "Disagreement over
> > whether a DAV URI namespace needs to be consistent."  Roy 
> > suggested 
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1998OctDec/0155
> > .html> removing the following definition from RFC2518:
> >    "An HTTP URL namespace is said to be consistent if it meets the
> >    following conditions: for every URL in the HTTP hierarchy there
> >    exists a collection that contains that URL as an 
> internal member."
> > However, consistency is not a requirement.  RFC2518 goes on:
> >    "Neither HTTP/1.1 nor WebDAV require that the entire HTTP URL 
> >    namespace be consistent.  However, certain WebDAV methods are 
> >    prohibited from producing results that cause namespace 
> >    inconsistencies."
> > To proceed on this issue, somebody who agrees that there is a 
> > problem here needs to suggest new wording, since we can't simply 
> > remove the definition without rewriting or removing the next few 
> > paragraphs and the definitions of some methods.  If nobody 
> > suggests new wording or explains why we need to remove a 
> > definition that isn't even a requirement, I suggest we keep it 
> > the way it is and resolve the issue CLOSED.  (We can always 
> > reopen an issue if somebody later decides to propose 
> something concrete.)
> 
> I think 5.1 is sufficiently clear, so mark this one as closed.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 22 June 2003 15:22:00 UTC