- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:51:44 -0800
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
The WG has already had extensive discussions on the names of the properties and I see no compelling reason to change them. Lisa On Dec 24, 2004, at 3:57 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > 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 Monday, 27 December 2004 21:52:16 UTC