- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 22:56:16 +0200
- To: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Brian Korver wrote:
> On Sep 13, 2004, at 5:16 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> Brian Korver wrote:
>>
>>> Because these are conditions describing the state
>>> of the world, not (in this context) mandates on
>>> server behavior.
>>
>>
>> Yes, they are.
>>
>> It says exactly when the server behaviour gets extended (when the type
>> isn't "simple string" *and* if the property isn't defined in RFC2518).
>>
>> Can you suggest alternative wording that keeps the RFC2119 terminology?
>>
>> Best regards, Julian
>>
>> --
>> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>
>
> Julian,
>
> I'm officially confused. Your text states that they
> are conditions ("the following conditions"), but you
> claim here that they're not. Anyhow, not worth arguing
> about....
Brian, I still don't get your point. The text clearly defines under
which conditions the server should return datatype information. Do you
have any proposal how to rephrase that?
Best regards, Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2004 20:56:52 UTC