Re: New status code: unordered collection

Yaron Goland wrote:

> The problem is that the argument you make for allowing this new code is
> recursive. The next group will come and say they want to just ship and can't
> we wait to solve this number problem until the next group and so on and so
> on. We have to draw the line somewhere and I think the advanced collection
> spec is a fine place to draw that line.

I agree.  Besides, this shouldn't hold up the AdvCol spec too long, should it?
It's fairly simple to specify (admittedly, it adds a little extra work to the
client implementation; but not much--you've got to have an XML parser anyway).

If we wind up doing a common root element, I like Lisa's <DAV:errors> element.

--
/=============================================================\
|John Stracke    | My opinions are my own | S/MIME & HTML OK  |
|francis@ecal.com|============================================|
|Chief Scientist | NT's lack of reliability is only surpassed |
|eCal Corp.      |  by its lack of scalability. -- John Kirch |
\=============================================================/

Received on Wednesday, 19 May 1999 13:30:59 UTC