Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 19:33:52 -0400

I'm happy to have one of the role elements be an href,
and have this href be the XLink role URI, e.g.:

<D:source>
  <D:link>
    <D:role>
      <D:href>/some/xlink/role/uri</D:href>
    </D:role>
    ...
  </D:link>
</D:source>

P.S. I know that isn't what Julian was suggesting,
but I believe it answers his concerns while still letting
the WebDAV role be an extensible element.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 4:09 AM
To: Jason Crawford; Clemm, Geoff
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED

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

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: "Lisa Dusseault" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:14:48 -0400

Reducing the scope of the purpose of the source property is good in
theory. However, this does not resolve the issue, because it only
discusses *theoretical* interoperability. To proceed to Draft Standard,
we need *actual interoperability*.

Are there two servers and two clients out there who have implemented the
source property already?  If so, we need to test them at the interop in
September or online.

Are there two servers and two clients who would implement and use the
source property in a form close to its current definition, but have not
done so yet? If so, what's blocking you from actually implementing it?
Is it that it is missing roles, or is something else required?

We can't have our cake and eat it too. We have to do the work of
implementing and testing interoperability if we want to keep source and
move to Draft Standard.

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:26 PM
To: Julian Reschke
Cc: Clemm, Geoff; 'Webdav WG (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED

Okay... Julian, Geoff and Roy makes 3:0. Unless I hear some dissenting
opinions, it looks like we should make it clear in the spec that the
dav:source property is only serving a specific purpose (2, 3, and
possibly 4) and use beyond that is not interoperable.

Wow... we might actually resolve this issue this time. :-)

J.