RE: Call for consensus on renaming readonly/writeonly to readable/writeable (ISSUE-14)

On 16 Jul 2014 at 19:33, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> 
>> Currently, it is possible to declare a property to be readonly and
writeonly
>> at the same time. By renaming these properties to readable/writeable it
will
>> become impossible
>> create such inconsistencies. Thus, the proposal is thus to rename
>> readonly/writeonly to readable/writeable.
> 
> +1, and I would say that readable=false and writable=false basically says
> that this property is unsupported, which may be reasonable for subclasses
for
> which such properties don't make sense. It's also similar to saying that
> cardinality=0.

Good point. I'm currently on a plane, could you please add a comment to the
issue so that we don't forget about this when updating the spec.


Thanks,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 18:50:31 UTC