Subject: [Bug 227] Collection state definition in conflict between BIND and RFC2518bis

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:26:00 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2006-01-31 12:25 -------
I vote for option 2, since the phrase "the state of the collection includes the 
last path segments of its internal member URLs and the resources they map to" 
is hard to understand, whereas if you give it a term ("binding"), you can just 
say "the state of the collection includes its bindings".

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:27:21 +0100

> say "the state of the collection includes its bindings".

Oh well. I meant to write: "...the state of the collection includes the 
relations between the last path segments of its internal member URLs and 
the resources they map to..."

Not that this is more readable, but at least it may be correct :-)

Best regards, Julian