RE: SEARCH by last path segment, Was: SEARCH for displayname

> 
> > 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