Re: twinql Retrospective motivates DESCRIBE refinement?

On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 10:09 -0400, Kendall Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 09:04:06AM -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > My question is the same in either case: did we consider this already?
> Just so I'm clear: what's the "this" that yr asking whether we considered it?

The "twinql Retrospective", specifically the refinements to
DESCRIBE that it suggests.

> I considered whether DESCRIBE was underspecified (intentionally) and whether
> we needed a way for client or server to ask or to say what it actually *did*
> in processing DESCRIBE.
> I decided that, in lieu of a fully worked out design, leaving it
> underspecified so that people could get experience with different DESCRIBE
> behaviors was a good (or, at least, acceptable) thing and one that might
> lead naturally to something better in the next version.
> > Does anybody think that it's new information that they would
> > like to use to change or reconsider the WG's decision?
> I don't see any new information there.

OK, that's the sort of advice I'm after. Thanks.

> Cheers, 
> Kendall
> --
> Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake
Dan Connolly, W3C
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E

Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 14:24:38 UTC