Subject: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.WeScrewedUp

From: Yaron Goland <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:50:48 -0800

The bind draft makes a heroic attempt to map its philosophy of the naming
relationships of collections and resources to the statements made in the
WebDAV spec. The end result are sections like the "Internal Member URI"
section. Unfortunately the attempts to try and reverse engineer the WebDAV
language into something sensible only makes the draft significantly more
confusing to the reader. I think the optimal solution would be to remove the
language attempting to explain how one could make some sense out of WebDAV
and instead say "WebDAV was wrong, we are right, just read this." For the
truly dedicated we can add the "internal member URI" section to the appendix
where it, along with WebDAV's mistakes, will hopefully be soon forgotten.
	BTW, we should obviously fix the WebDAV draft but that will take a
while and I can't think of a good reason to hold the bind draft up until
that happens. Therefore the bind draft should introduce the new language and
we will roll that language into WebDAV at the appropriate time.
	As such I propose that ALL mentions of "Internal Member URIs" be
stricken from the main body of the spec and only be mentioned, if at all, in
an appendix.

---

From: Jim Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:33:18 -0800

I'm comfortable with moving this section to an appendix.  This section is
only needed for reconciling the collection terminology of RFC 2518 with the
terminology in the binding specification, not for understanding the spec.
itself, and hence the reconciliation langugage could easily be moved to an
appendix.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Yaron Goland
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2000 5:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: WebDAV Bindings - Issue Yaron.WeScrewedUp