Re: precondition naming [was Re: comments on draft-ietf-webdav-quota-04.txt]

I also do not recall a show-of-hands request on this topic,
but if there had been one, I would have said that no compelling
case has been made to diverge from the conventions of RFC3253,
and therefore those conventions should be maintained.
Cheers,
Geoff
Julian wrote on 12/22/2004 03:27:48 PM:
> 
> Brian Korver wrote:
> >> Use name of precondition, not failure description: 
> >> <quota-not-exceeded/> instead of <storage-quota-reached/>.
> > 
> > 
> > There was no clear consensus when I asked for a show of hands on the 
list
> > on whether this change was desired/required.
> 
> I can't recall you asking; but I'm sure you can point to a message in 
> the mailing list archive?
> 
> Anyway, *I* recall that you agreed to change it 
> 
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/0107.html>) 
> and the only disagreement came from Lisa (in 
> 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004JulSep/0109.html>, 
> but she said she didn't want to delay the draft because of that).
> 
> That being said: you are re-using terminology and syntax from RFC3253 in 
> a slighty incompatible way. Thus, I think it's reasonable to ask *you* 
> to show that there is consensus for introducing this inconsistency.