- From: <edgar@edgarschwarz.de>
- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 21:40:28 +0200 (MEST)
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
- Cc: edgar@edgarschwarz.de
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > <D:error>
> > <D:quota-not-exceeded/>
> > </D:error>
This also a matter of wording. Perhaps negatives should be avoided in conditions.
So what about: D:quota-met ?
Ok, it would be better it we had something like D:unmet-condition
(Probably D:condition would be good enough together with an HTTP error code)
instead of D:error. But I can live with it.
> >
> > and think "Huh? My error is that quota is not exceeded? what's up with
> > that? " I can even imagine bugs logged against implementors who
> > correctly follow the spec.
>
> On the other hand, implementors may be accustomed with the terminology
> used by RFC3253, RFC3648 and RFC3744, and become confused by a new spec
> being inconsistent with it.
>
> Also, people seeing DAV:error (and not already familiar with RFC3253)
> will hopefully find the specification, which will point them to RFC3253,
> section 1.6, which explains it all.
I agree that it's surprising at first, Lisa. OTOH pre- and postconditions are
a fine concept IMHO.
Remember a computer language from the Middle Ages called Eiffel ;-?
So even if it was done differently in former times I would go with RFC3253, RFC3648,
RFC3744 and Julian in the future.
Cheers, Edgar
--
edgar@edgarschwarz.de, Running Bluebottle www.edgarschwarz.de
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler ! Albert Einstein
www.edgar-schwarz.de/cgi-bin/moin/ www.edgar-schwarz.de/cgi-bin/moin/SwOberon
Received on Tuesday, 7 September 2004 21:13:05 UTC