- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2004 12:57:15 +0100
- To: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- CC: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Brian Korver wrote: >>> This was discussed on the list in the past, with no clear consensus >>> except >>> that you and I agree to disagree on this. Someone suggested that the >>> problem was with using the term "quota" at all, but there wasn't any >>> consensus that we should change that either. >> >> >> I'd say the working group needs to make an explicit decision whether >> disk limits are in-scope or not. If they are in, we're using the >> wrong terminology here and we should fix that. > > > With my author hat on I might agree, but with my this-is-already-deployed > hat on I'm voting for leaving the spec as-is. I haven't exactly noticed > an overwhelming mandate for changing "quota" to something else. > ... Well, the "this-is-already-deployed" point of view hardly is relevant here. This spec has been under discussion for over two years now, and progress on it has been extremely slow. If being completely compatible to the stuff that is already deployed was important, I would have expected that more energy would have been invested to actually get the spec out of the door. That being said; there shouldn't be any problem at all migrating existing implementations to new terminology/property names. The server implementations can continue to support the old properties until the relevant clients have been upgraded. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 24 December 2004 11:57:55 UTC