![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
All, I presented Weiming's slides just after Jamal's presentation yesterday. No divergence of views on the principle of how to describe paths was found. Whereas, according to his slides, Weiming considers that the distinction of Attribute, field, and index, must be reflected in the path notation, the consensus in the room was that this is not necessary: a path could be x.y.z, where it is clear that x must be an attribute, and y and z can be field or index. No need to mention it explicitely in the path notation. The path can be constructed with index-search or content-search. The consensus in the room was that the path should include the whole thing, not only the first attribute, as opposed to Weiming's suggestion on the last slide. Content-search remains to be defined more precisely, as well as block access. So it is too early to disagree ;-) Regards, -Robert Wang,Weiming wrote: Jamal, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <hadi at znyx.com> -- Robert Haas IBM Zurich Research Laboratory Säumerstrasse 4 CH-8803 Rüschlikon/Switzerland phone +41-1-724-8698 fax +41-1-724-8578 http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~rha |
_______________________________________________ Forces-protocol mailing list Forces-protocol at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/forces-protocol