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: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:46:27 +0200
To: <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCCEEBENAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>

OK,

I have added this to the issues list -- and will make DAV:isdefined a
required operator unless somebody disagrees (soon :-).

Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:54 PM
> To: Jim Davis; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Rationale for DAV:isdefined to be optional
>
>
>
> > 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 Tuesday, 25 June 2002 06:47:10 GMT

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