RE: REPORTS

What's the official way to see if expand-property is supported?  Just
to try it?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org
> [mailto:ietf-dav-versioning-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Tim Ellison
> Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 1:03 PM
> To: 'DeltaV'
> Subject: RE: REPORTS
> 
> 
> "John Hall" <johnhall@xythos.com> wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Hall [mailto:johnhall@evergo.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 9:58 AM
> > To: 'Tim Ellison'; 'DeltaV'
> > Subject: RE: REPORTS
> >
> >
> > >
> > > There were no objections raised in the meeting or when the
> > > minutes were published.  I'd consider that a consensus.
> >
> >
> > It was the equivalent of slipping language in a bill at
> > reconciliation time, without debate, after midnight when
> > everyone else had gone home, then rushing the bill out for
> > signature before anyone noticed.
> 
> Hey, if you can run a country that way, I'm sure we can write a spec like
> that<g>
> 
> > MAY is more appropriate than SHOULD given the late date at
> > which the change was made, the manner of the change, and the
> > fact that a commercial implementation of the spec will not be
> > implementing this report and will recommend that clients who
> > wish to be interoperable avoid it as well.
> >
> > And if there is no difference between MAY and SHOULD, then
> > there should be no objection to making it MAY.
> 
> Let's agree on what it _ought_ to say rather than on the process that got
> us to this point or what you will recommend.
> 
> Given that the report will be useful in a number of interesting 
> scenarios I
> think it is a useful optimization that servers SHOULD implement.  
> Note that
> clients are free not use use it, and servers are free not to implement it
> and both will be within the spec.  But servers should be encouraged to
> implement it and clients should be encouraged to look for it and use it.
> 
> Regards,
> Tim
> 
>

Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 13:02:35 UTC