- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:54:29 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Cc: Elias Sinderson <elias@cse.ucsc.edu>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Are you proposing to change RFC 3253 to get a consistent terminology?
Am 27.12.2004 um 22:50 schrieb Lisa Dusseault:
>
> 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.
> - We could go for a consistent style with RFC3253, however I found
> the RFC3253 style confusing and prefer the quota style as-is
> - 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").
>
> So it's RFC3253 that made the departure in style.
>
> Lisa
>
> On Dec 24, 2004, at 9:06 AM, Elias Sinderson wrote:
>
>>
>> Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>>> I'm convinced that re-using RFC3253 terminology in an inconsistent
>>> way is a Very Bad Idea [...]
>>
>> Reusing /any/ terminology in an inconsistent way is a bad idea -- it
>> leads to confusion among implementors, makes the ensuing discussions
>> overly cumbersome, etc.
>>
>>
>> Elias
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 December 2004 09:55:33 UTC