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

From: Jason Crawford <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 17:43:51 -0500

> 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.

---

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:57:33 -0500

I agree that Jason's suggested rewording is clearer.

Cheers,
Geoff

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

> 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. 
> 
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:20:27 +0100

> I agree that Jason's suggested rewording is clearer.

OK; new proposed text; based on Jason's text and proposal:

15.2.  displayname Property

    Name:   displayname

    Purpose:   Provides a name for the resource that is suitable for
       presentation to a user.

    Value:   Any text.

    Protected:   SHOULD NOT be protected.  Note that servers implementing
       [RFC2518] might have made this a protected property as this is a
       new requirement.

    COPY/MOVE behaviour:   This property value SHOULD be preserved in
       COPY and MOVE operations.

    Description:   The property contains a description of the resource
       that is suitable for presentation to a user.  This property is
       defined on the resource, and hence SHOULD have the same value
       independent of the Request-URI used to retrieve it (thus computing
       this property based on the Request-URI is deprecated).

       While generic clients will be able to use the value of the DAV:
       displayname property for display to end users, client UI designers
       must understand that the method for identifying resources is still
       the URL.  In particular, there is no guarantee whatsoever that the
       values of this property are unique for each member of a
       collection.  Also note that 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.

    <!ELEMENT displayname (#PCDATA) >

---

From: "John Barone" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:46:10 -0800

+1

-John 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Julian Reschke
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 6:20 AM
To: Geoffrey M Clemm
Cc: Jason Crawford; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Comments on the "new" 2518--Display Name

    Name:   displayname

    Value:   Any text.

---

From: Elias Sinderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 10:54:02 -0800

I am satisfied with the proposed text, below.

Best,
Elias