- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:50:42 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>
> I generally agree that specification writers should re-use terminology
> consistently -- great sentiment. However that isn't even what we're
> talking about here.
> - This isn't a case of re-using any terminology -- the issue is a set
> of new error codes with a different naming style.
With both a naming and usage style that is inconsistent with the spec
that introduced the syntax. If you don't want to use it consistently,
*please* don't use it at all.
> - We could go for a consistent style with RFC3253, however I found the
> RFC3253 style confusing and prefer the quota style as-is
We know that, but as far as I can tell everybody except you and Brian
clearly disagrees.
> - The style used in the quota draft is consistent with RFC2616 style of
> describing errors in text. E.g. HTTP generally describes the error
> ("NOT FOUND") rather than the precondition ("RESOURCE MUST EXIST").
Lisa, we're not talking about HTTP status codes, but about condition
names used inside the DAV:error element defined in RFC3253.
> So it's RFC3253 that made the departure in style.
You may argue that, but in that case the right way to approach the issue
is not to re-use RFC3253's syntax at all.
Best regards, Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Monday, 27 December 2004 23:51:20 UTC