Subject: RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

From: "Clemm, Geoff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:23:43 -0400

Just to clarify, the proposal I was supporting was to replace
bytes with octets, not to leave the units unspecified.  I don't
think anyone wants to leave the units unspecified.  There is a
separate question of whether the units should to appear in the
property name ... I'd probably leave it off, for uniformity with
the rest of HTTP (it is the "Length" header, not the "Octet-Length"
header).

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Elias [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 11:11 AM
To: 'WebDAV (E-mail)'
Subject: Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-dusseault-dav-quota-01.txt

Hello,

I feel pretty strongly that the units should be defined as bytes. This 
is a widely accepted standard unit of measure when talking about disk 
space used/available. If the unit is left undefined, the vast majority 
of servers would use some denomination of bytes as their unit of measure 
anyway, whether that be individual bytes, Kb, Mb, etc. Allowing this 
flexibility doesn't buy us much, just more unit conversions.

Furthermore, writing a generic client to support multiple units (on 
different server implementations) would rapidly become an exercise in 
finding out what unit the server was using. This would, in turn, require 
either another round trip or, more likely, the introduction of a new 
header value, thus unnecessarily raising the complexity of the world...

Elias

Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> [...] For the suggestion not to use 'bytes': I'm ok with 'octets' (is
there a
> difference important enough to make the change? ) but I reject the
> suggestion that it should be an unmeasured unit. It's useless to know
> that the quota is 33 frobnitzes and 18 frobnitzes have been used up if
> you want to have some hint if you can upload a 1.5 Mb file.

---

From: Jim Luther <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:43:22 -0700

On Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 09:23  AM, Clemm, Geoff wrote:

> There is a

I like having the unit type in the name because it makes the purpose of 
the property more self-described.

However, I'm not opposed to removing the unit types from the new 
property names as long the property names are NOT quota and quotaused 
-- using quota and quotaused would break Apple's existing server and 
client implementations. Existing Mac OS X clients use quota and 
quotaused and expect the unit size to be 512-bytes and that's what the 
Apple iDisk server returns for quota and quotaused.

- Jim

---

From: Elias Sinderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:19:53 -0700

We're in agreement then, both WRT the units used and the property name. 
When I said 'bytes' in my previous message I meant 8-bit bytes, or more 
specifically octets. Uniformity is a good thing, provided that the 
documentation is clear and readily available.

Elias

---

From: "Julian Reschke" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:25:18 +0200

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Jim Luther
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 6:43 PM
> To: [email-masked]
the
> property more self-described.
>
> However, I'm not opposed to removing the unit types from the new property
> names as long the property names are NOT quota and quotaused --
> using quota
> and quotaused would break Apple's existing server and client
> implementations. Existing Mac OS X clients use quota and quotaused and
> expect the unit size to be 512-bytes and that's what the Apple
> iDisk server
> returns for quota and quotaused.

Well.

WebDAV properties are identified using namespaces. Just do not add
properties in namespaces you don't control.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760