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

RE: comment on DASL draft issue: qsd pseudo property

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:37:54 +0200
To: "Jim Davis" <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEELGELAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Davis
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 8:16 AM
> To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: comment on DASL draft issue: qsd pseudo property
>
>
>
> At 09:23 AM 5/28/2002 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >This issue is in because I wanted to find out whether there are
> others who
> >consider this a problem.
>
> I haven't seen any mail from anyone else who considers this a
> problem.  Have you?  If not, then could we close the issue
> (leaving things
> as they are?)

I think it breaks the concept of WebDAV properties and is generally weird to
implement (yet another special case).

> >An
> >alternative of course is to move QSD into a separate document to be
> >submitted later - I think everybody agrees that SEARCH is useful
> even if QSD
> >isn't in the base RFC.
>
> Is your distaste for this feature so strong that we'd have to
> toss out all
> of QSD?  I am willing to sacrifice QSD to get DASL approved, but
> this seems
> like a weak reason to throw away QSD.
>
> For the record, I also think it's weird, and I am the one
> designed it.  But
> I could not find a better solution.  Unless you can, can we agree
> to leave
> this in?

Right now, it *is* in. I don't expect that the draft will be finished
anytime soon (due to the open issues in other areas), so I'd like to leave
the reminder in for now.
Received on Monday, 10 June 2002 02:38:33 GMT

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