- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:13:03 -0800
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "'Wallmer, Martin'" <Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com>, "'Kevin Wiggen'" <kwiggen@xythos.com>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
> > > So the parent collections of the two bindings would have to > have lists > > of hidden resources instead. That's harder for clients to > change than > > a simple 'is-hidden' boolean on each binding. > > The binding *is* part of the state of the collection. Thus if > a binding > can be "hidden, this is naturally a property of the binding, and thus > part of the state of the collection. > You say "property of the binding" because it's natural to think of bindings as having properties. If that's so natural, then there's a strong reason to let it happen. If we defined a feature to hide bindings, you could set up binding 'foo' to resource A as hidden, whereas binding 'bar' to resource A as visible. Then if you request 'ishidden' on 'foo' the server returns 'true', and 'ishidden' on 'bar' returns false. To do this in a more complicated manner requires justification which I think we're approaching in a separate mail. Lisa
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:13:21 UTC