Re: twinql Retrospective motivates DESCRIBE refinement?

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:04:06AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:

> My question is the same in either case: did we consider this already?

Just so I'm clear: what's the "this" that yr asking whether we considered it?

I considered whether DESCRIBE was underspecified (intentionally) and whether
we needed a way for client or server to ask or to say what it actually *did*
in processing DESCRIBE.

I decided that, in lieu of a fully worked out design, leaving it
underspecified so that people could get experience with different DESCRIBE
behaviors was a good (or, at least, acceptable) thing and one that might
lead naturally to something better in the next version.

> Does anybody think that it's new information that they would
> like to use to change or reconsider the WG's decision?

I don't see any new information there.

Cheers, 
Kendall
--
Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake