- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 10:30:17 +0100
- To: "Lisa Dusseault" <lisa@xythos.com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 2:24 AM > To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Webdav WG' > Subject: RE: Review of ordering draft, version 05 > > > > I still feel strongly that postconditions (and ideally also > preconditions) should be explained as full English sentences > > For example, replace > > "(DAV:ordering-type-set): the collection was created with the > specified ordering type. " (that *is* a full sentence, isn't it?) > With > > "(DAV:ordering-type-set): The server MUST set the ordering-type > property on the new resource to the value specified in the > Ordering-Type > header by the client. If it cannot, this error should be used." I agree that the condition itself can be expressed in a more stringent manner. However, I strongly disagree with the second sentence: all pre/postconditions are MUSTs (by definition), and therefore the statement is (a) redundant and (b) - for consistency - it would have to be repeated on each an every condition. > I will propose specific text for every postcondition if necessary. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 14 February 2003 04:30:51 UTC