RE: "URI properties", Was: SEARCH for displayname

> > the bind spec, that's not a standard yet and I don't agree with that
> > "clarification".
> 
> Nor is SEARCH. Martin's question was about how SEARCH can filter by 
> resource names in presence of multiple bindings (as defined 
> by BIND and 
> implemented by Tamino/Slide). Martin, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, and Martin's proposal wasn't unreasonable.  I am questioning if it's
the simplest way to accomplish our functional goals.  I suspect we're 
painting ourselves into a corner with some of our model assumptions, 
some of them in the intersection between dasl and bind, some of them in
bind alone.  

> Lisa, please respect that Martin and I are *indeed* talking about 
> bindings as defined by the BIND spec, and nothing else. If you have 
> problems with what the BIND spec defines, please raise that on the 
> WebDAV mailing list. Right now the BIND spec has only one open issue 
> left (marshalling of bind loop conditions), and IMHO the plan is to 
> last-call the document once the issue is resolved.

I do plan to raise these issues more generally for bind.  However, I 
have also raised them in the past and they do not show up on your list.

Sorry if my replies are brief to the point of bluntness; I'm trying 
to do a bunch of IETF coordination and cross-group work this week and
attend other WG meetings at the same time.  I will try to understand
the context in which you're saying how things are and must behave.

In return, please respect that I am challenging the model assumptions
I see developing here and in bind discussions.  I hope it's not too
late for us to have open minds about how things are defined.

Lisa