W3C TAG

Ka-Ping Yee ping@lfw.org
Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:03:23 -0600 (CST)


On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Jim Whitehead wrote:
> DAV vs NFS & SMB:
> DAV/DeltaV vs CVS:
> DAV vs SQL:

Thank you for the overview.

> OK, my turn. Why does crit.org still not support WebDAV for storage of
> annotations?

For goodness' sake, Jim, Crit predated WebDAV by about four years.
If you're really going to ask this, then i suggest that the opposite
question is more appropriate: why did no one from your group consider
how WebDAV could be designed to interoperate with Crit?  Why does no
one in your group or the W3C yet acknowledge or cite Crit in your
documents as related work?  When has anyone from your group consulted
me or expressed interest in collaborating on it?

(I'm not angry at you, Jim.  But if you must raise the question,
then i have a few questions of my own.)

The XLink/XPointer and annotations groups have completely ignored
this prior work, instead building a vastly more complicated and
difficult-to-understand model that is to this day not usable or
accessible from any common browser, while Crit supported them all
from day one.  Where is my motivation to continue working on Crit
when the W3C has consistently ignored real working implementations
like Crit and MINSE in favour of complex unimplemented specifications
like XPointer and MathML?

> The annotations could be stored in DAV properties, and would
> have the advantage that you could easily copy and move resources around
> while still preserving their annotations.

Perhaps you could, but what of annotations on remote documents?
It sounds like you're asking not for Crit to "add support" for
WebDAV, but rather to *require* WebDAV features on the server hosting
the target document.  Wouldn't this reduce Crit's interoperability
from 100% to some tiny number?


-- ?!ng