RE: SEARCH by last path segment, Was: SEARCH for displayname

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?


Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:40:26 UTC