RE: SEARCH for displayname

If 'last-path-segment' were a property, it would be easy to define and use
in more situations than just SEARCH, and simplify specification.  It
*should* be a property.
 
Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: Wallmer, Martin [mailto:Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:25 PM
To: 'Lisa Dusseault'; 'Julian Reschke'
Cc: Wallmer, Martin; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org
Subject: RE: SEARCH for displayname



Hi, 

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
resource. 

Regards, 
Martin 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Lisa Dusseault [mailto:lisa@xythos.com] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 12. November 2003 06:27 
To: 'Julian Reschke' 
Cc: 'Wallmer, Martin'; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org 
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. 

lisa 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 4:57 PM 
> To: Lisa Dusseault 
> Cc: 'Wallmer, Martin'; www-webdav-dasl@w3.org 
> 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 -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 
> 
>