- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 21:07:37 -0500
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
- Message-ID: <E4F2D33B98DF7E4880884B9F0E6FDEE201DA0347@SUS-MA1IT01>
OK, I'll mark this issue as closed unless someone objects. Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:02 AM To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org Subject: BIND issue: 5.1_LOOP_STATUS Back in October, Geoff Clemm wrote: > If we handled it the way proposed below, the old clients will just ignore > the new element, and the user will incorrectly conclude that the collection > had no child by that name. With the original proposal, users of > old clients will be told that there is a child, and will get the > error message that they've already seen that child, so it is > being left out of the report. I think the later is preferable. I agree that introducing a new error marshalling concept just for an edge case here (Depth: infinity and bind loop) is unnecessary, in particular if it may confuse old clients. Therefore the issue should be closed. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 7 February 2003 21:08:09 UTC