- From: Fisher Mark <fisherm@tce.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 12:43:44 -0500
- To: "'Jim Davis'" <jdavis@parc.xerox.com>, "'www-webdav-dasl@w3.org'" <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Jim Davis writes: >What we have yet to agree on is the MEANS by which such optionality is >provided. There are at least two alternatives: > >1) the operator itself is optional. A server need not recognize it >and MUST return an error if it is used. > >2) Every DASL server MUST recognize every operator, and MUST treat the >results of applying unimplemented operators as unknown. So implementation >is optional, but the syntax isn't. There isn't a big gain from (2), as the UI result should be the same -- an empty result set along with an error message. If (2) is chosen, you still need to implement (1) for truly unknown (mistyped etc.) operators. So let's go with (1). > ========================================================== > Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics > fisherm@indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN > "Browser Torture Specialist, First Class" >
Received on Wednesday, 1 July 1998 13:43:59 UTC