Re: Comments on the "new" 2518--Display Name

I agree that Jason's suggested rewording is clearer.

Cheers,
Geoff

Jason wrote on 03/19/2006 05:43:51 PM:

> 
> > Servers and clients must understand that the method for
> > identifying resources is still the URL.  While generic clients
> > will be able to display DAV:displayname to end users, both sides
> > of the protocol must understand that if users are allowed to
> > perform operations such as rename, move, copy etc, generic clients
> > must display the URLs (or the path segments used in the displayed
> > collection) to allow these operations. 
> 
> I don't know what last sentence means.   Clients do not need to 
> display the URL or segments for the client to do those operations. 
> 'at least not in GUI based clients.  Because I can't tell what is 
> meant by "generic client" above,  I can't tell if the sentence is 
> incorrect.  Nevertheless, as stated, I'm uncomfortable with the 
> "must" in there.   And in general, I'm also not comfortable with us 
> providing "must" statements regarding UI design.  UI is not the 
> business of this spec. 
> 
> 
> > Changes to DAV:displayname
> > do not issue moves or copies to the server, but simply change a
> > piece of meta-data on the individual resource. 
> 
> I'd suggest changing this second paragraph to something 
> that largely removes that sentence: 
> 
>   While generic clients
>  will be able to display DAV:displayname to end users, 
>   client UI designers must understand that the method for
>  identifying resources is still the URL.   Changes to DAV:displayname
>  do not issue moves or copies to the server, but simply change a
>  piece of meta-data on the individual resource. 
> 
> We can then also perhaps make a statement about two resources 
> in the same collection having the same DAV:displayname. 
> 
> J.