Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 18:06:15 -0400

I've made a proposal in the following post...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2002AprJun/0141.html

There have been several suggestions.  I'd like to focus on one of them.
The suggestion is the suggestion to make the role be a tag rather than
an attribute.  The justification was that this could allow for structured
roles.
That actually sounds good to me in principle, but I'd like to make sure
we're actually likely to capitalize on it.

Could someone suggest some roles that they'd like to see.

Also if you can think of any *structured* roles, please put them on the
table so that we can at least see how that might work.

Thanks,

J.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569,   [email-masked]

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2002 10:08:39 +0200

I don't think this a good idea.

The W3C has decided to treat link roles as URIs. If we decide to define a
different mechanism, we will
sooner or later have to define a mapping of XLink role URIs to our role
schema (because other systems with which a WebDAv server connect may have
decided to use standard Xlink roles). Furthermore this brings *us* into the
business of defining roles (I think the spec should only define a mechanism
to marshall them, that's it).

Julian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Jason Crawford
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 12:06 AM
To: Clemm, Geoff
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED

Thanks,

J.