W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webdav-dasl@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: comment on issues in DASL draft: query on href

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 08:38:51 +0200
To: "Lisa Dusseault" <ldusseault@xythos.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Jim Davis'" <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCAEMEEKAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 4:37 AM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'; 'Jim Davis'; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: comment on issues in DASL draft: query on href
>
>
> > So if we really need to provide this feature, I'd define a
> > new construct
> > like:
> >
> > <D:like>
> >       <D:binding-name/>	<!-- borrowed from RFC3253 -->
> >       <D:literal>image/%</D:literal>
> > </D:like>
> >
> > which of course would only work for the last path segment.
>
> Name the construct <D:path/> (or path-name) instead of
> <D:binding-name>, and
> then it will work for the whole path as well as the last segment.
> Of course
> the major thing is not to name it right, but to define it so that
> it covers
> what you want. Does the user want both?

I think there are valid use cases for both. I think the semantics for
DAV:binding-name are clear, but is matching of "some" other path segment
good enough? What if you want to test member ship in a specific collection
name?
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 03:07:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 03:38:08 GMT