- From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 09:24:09 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Julian wrote on 01/16/2004 03:00:17 PM: > Jason wrote in an off-list mail: > > ... But I think it's fine, and in fact advisible, > > to establish the basic vocabulary of bindings in 2518 and let > > the bindings draft just cover the optional issues and > > clarifications for bindings and multiple bindings. > > I do agree that RFC2518bis *should* remove any inconsistencies with > BIND, where present. Note that one major problem was the definition for > DELETE, which (in RFC2518) required to remove all other bindings to the > resource as well. AFAIK, this has been fixed in RFC2518bis. > > So besides the fact that RFC2518bis talks about "internal members" > rather than bindings, I'm not really sure that anything *needs* to be > fixed. Geoff? It probably is worth making a pass through 2518bis to make sure that all the language that deals with internal members is compatible with bind semantics, but I didn't find any problems of that sort last time I read through 2518bis (but I wasn't specifically looking for that, so I could have missed something). Cheers, Geoff
Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 09:24:49 UTC