Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED

From: "Jason Crawford" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 18:16:53 -0400

<<
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).
I assume Geoff or others will respond to this and hopefully also to my
questions.

<<
 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).
By *US* I take it you mean the WebDAV community.  Is it your view that some
non-WebDAV entity will end up defining XLink roles that are also pertainent
to
WebDAV?

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

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 01:28:39 +0200

Not exactly the WebDAV community in total, but the subset of it actively
working on fixing RFC2518.

Regarding role URIs: yes, I'd expect this: see, for instance:

http://www.rddl.org/#role

BTW: just because a role is identified by a URI, it doesn't need to be
opaque. For instance, the role URI may identify a HTTP-GETtable resource in
a specific format. There's a reason why the ACL spec identifies principals
by URI instead of marshalling all principal information in each PROPFIND,
right?
  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Jason Crawford
  Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2002 12:17 AM
  To: Julian Reschke
  Cc: [email-masked]
  Subject: RE: Issue: SOURCE_PROPERTY_UNDERSPECIFIED

  <<

  <<
  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).
  By *US* I take it you mean the WebDAV community. Is it your view that some
  non-WebDAV entity will end up defining XLink roles that are also
pertainent to
  WebDAV?