- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 20:34:44 +0200
- To: John Barone <jbarone@xythos.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org, www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
John Barone wrote: > First and foremost I would be in favor of wording that is consistent > with what's outlined in section 2.3.1, for truncation. From a client > perspective, I would think that the MUST wording in section 5.17.1 is > most desirable. However, from a practical (and admittedly self-serving) > point of view, simply stating that the results MUST ordered as the > client directed, would be preferred. Section 2.3.1 goes on to say: > > "... the partial results returned MAY be any subset of the result set > that would have satisfied the original query". > > Perhaps in section 5.17.1 the additional sentence could be phrased: > > "... the results that are included in the response document SHOULD be > those that order highest" So, to be precise, the single change you're proposing is to relax the "must" to a "should"? I'd be ok with that. BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 18:35:28 UTC