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

RE: Rationale for DAV:isdefined to be optional

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:54:07 +0200
To: "Jim Davis" <jrd3@alum.mit.edu>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCIECMENAA.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 24, 2002 5:47 PM
> To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Rationale for DAV:isdefined to be optional
>
>
>
> At 01:14 PM 6/24/2002 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >does anybody remember the reason why DAV:isdefined is an *optional*
> >operator?
> >
> >Julian
>
> I don't remember, and a search of the archived mail
> http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=www-webdav-dasl
> does not show anything either.
>
> So I can only guess: either someone objected (verbally) that it was
> expensive to implement or it was a mistake.
>
> Are you asking from curiousity, or do you want to propose that it
> be mandatory?

Optional features are bad for interoperability -- so if everybody here can
live with it being required (I do), then I'd prefer to make it required.

I was asking because I just implemented QSD according to the "current"
draft, and QSD reports optional operators...
Received on Monday, 24 June 2002 11:54:44 GMT

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