- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:36:32 -0800
- To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: "'Wallmer, Martin'" <Martin.Wallmer@softwareag.com>, "'Kevin Wiggen'" <kwiggen@xythos.com>, <www-webdav-dasl@w3.org>
Julian, you keep begging the question. You effectively argue that putting properties on bindings is wrong because it's wrong. You can't assume that something is wrong in order to argue that it's wrong. I'm asking you to consider whether our specifications would be better or worse if it *weren't* wrong. > > If we defined a feature to hide bindings, you could set up binding > > 'foo' > > to resource A as hidden, whereas binding 'bar' to resource A as > > visible. Then if you request 'ishidden' on 'foo' > > the server returns 'true', and 'ishidden' on 'bar' returns false. > > And this is exactly what I want to avoid. If the property > belongs to the > parent collection, nothing is lost and we don't need a hack > (a property > that varies upon request URI). Calling it a 'hack' assumes that we agree on the architectural principle. I'm questioning the proposed architectural principle. Do you have another argument besides calling it a hack? Lisa
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:40:26 UTC