> 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 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:12:34 GMT