RE: Rationale for DAV:isdefined to be optional

OK,

I have added this to the issues list -- and will make DAV:isdefined a
required operator unless somebody disagrees (soon :-).

Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Julian Reschke
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:54 PM
> To: Jim Davis; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Rationale for DAV:isdefined to be optional
>
>
>
> > From: www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-webdav-dasl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Davis
> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 5:47 PM
> > To: www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Rationale for DAV:isdefined to be optional
> >
> >
> >
> > At 01:14 PM 6/24/2002 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >does anybody remember the reason why DAV:isdefined is an *optional*
> > >operator?
> > >
> > >Julian
> >
> > I don't remember, and a search of the archived mail
> > http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=www-webdav-dasl
> > does not show anything either.
> >
> > So I can only guess: either someone objected (verbally) that it was
> > expensive to implement or it was a mistake.
> >
> > Are you asking from curiousity, or do you want to propose that it
> > be mandatory?
>
> Optional features are bad for interoperability -- so if everybody here can
> live with it being required (I do), then I'd prefer to make it required.
>
> I was asking because I just implemented QSD according to the "current"
> draft, and QSD reports optional operators...
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 06:47:10 UTC