RE: SEARCH for displayname


I didn't want to introduce properties to the URI. If this should be allowed
or makes sense is a different discussion. What I want to say is: the last
path segment logically belongs to the URI and is NOT a property of the


-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Dusseault []
Sent: Mittwoch, 12. November 2003 06:27
To: 'Julian Reschke'
Cc: 'Wallmer, Martin';
Subject: RE: SEARCH for displayname

Well, it's a little more complicated than that.  I agree most existing
properties refer to the resource. However the spec actually says properties
describe "the state of" the resource.  That state could include its URL
mappings or primary mapping or current mapping.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Reschke [] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:57 PM
> To: Lisa Dusseault
> Cc: 'Wallmer, Martin';
> Subject: Re: SEARCH for displayname
> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> > Julian, you keep saying there are no URL properties.  Where 
> do you get 
> > this dogma from?  URL properties could be useful, are 
> implemented, and 
> > are not forbidden as far as I know.
> > 
> > You may feel there *should* be no URL properties but it's 
> misleading 
> > to state that as fact.
> RFC2518 clearly states that it's the resource that has 
> properties, not 
> the URL (section 4).
> Regards, Julian
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 02:25:36 UTC