- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 14:05:11 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
I'd vote for the latter (i.e. just refer to the property without the namespace), but either is OK by me. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 6:09 PM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: RE: Purpose of Namespace << So I'd say all that needs to be done is to get rid of the sentence that refers to concatenating the namespace URL with the local node name, and we are done with this issue. >> Sounds good. One other thing is that in places where it refers to a property with it's concatenated name, I'll have to change the reference to use a [URI, local name] pair. For example section 8.2.2... In this example, the client requests the server to set the value of the http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/Authors property, and to remove the property http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/Copyright- Owner. Since the Copyright-Owner property could not be removed, no becomes In this example, the client requests the server to set the value of the [http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/,Authors] property, and to remove the property [http://www.w3.com/standards/z39.50/,Copyright- Owner]. Since the Copyright-Owner property could not be removed, no or perhaps In this example, the client requests the server to set the value of the Authors property, and to remove the property Copyright- Owner. Since the Copyright-Owner property could not be removed, no If you have a preference for this, let me know, otherwise I'll just figure it out. J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Sunday, 2 December 2001 14:05:46 UTC