- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:21:41 -0500
- To: "'WebDAV'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Just to explicitly vote on this thread, I also support the inclusion of GULP in 2518bis (I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone :-). I think the text is simplest if we clearly define bindings in terms of existing 2518 concepts (as Julian did in his referenced message), and then use the term binding where appropriate in the GULP text (and anywhere else in the body of 2518bis where it would simplify the language). Once we actually insert the text into 2518bis, it probably will be clearer in context what terminology is simpler. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Jason Crawford [mailto:nn683849@smallcue.com] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:03 PM To: Elias Cc: Julian Reschke; Stefan Eissing; 'WebDAV' Subject: Re: GULP vs RFC2518bis I also support the inclusion of GULP in 2518bis. The copy I read was the copy that still included the term bindings a few times, but it didn't seem to be a problem as I read it. But if folks can remove those without impacting the document, that's also fine by me. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com I do not check nn621779@smallcue.com
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 19:13:27 UTC