well, maybe its more "desired" than required. sure you cant enforce it. So its equivalent to I want it, I dont care, I dont want. How about those 3 terms? ;)
-- Markus
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Javier privat Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. August 2006 19:07 An: tuco@berkeley.edu Cc: Döring, Markus; tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org Betreff: Re: [tdwg-tapir] log only terminology
Is it "requiered" what I understand?
I mean... how do you want to enforce this? If there is no way to enforce it why dont just use accepted/denied? Or even better: true, false
Cheers.
On 8/2/06, John R. WIECZOREK tuco@berkeley.edu wrote:
I like Renato's suggestion as well.
On 8/2/06, "Döring, Markus" m.doering@bgbm.org wrote:
that sounds best to me so far. yes, any other suggestion?
-- Markus
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: tdwg-tapir-bounces@lists.tdwg.org [mailto:tdwg-tapir-bounces@lists.tdwg.org ] Im Auftrag
von
Renato De Giovanni Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. August 2006 14:38 An: tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org Betreff: Re: [tdwg-tapir] log only terminology
Markus,
How about defining a controlled vocabulary?
<operations logRequests="[required | accepted | denied]"> -- Renato
On 2 Aug 2006 at 11:23, "Döring, Markus" wrote:
hi, I am wondering about the naming for the attribute in the
capabilities that tells others if this provider wants
to receive
log-only requests. How should we call it?
<operations logRequestsDesired="true"> <operations logRequestsDenied="false"> <operations logRequests="true">
<operations
logRequestsAccepted="true">
From those I would opt for "logRequestsDesired".
Any preferences or different suggestions?
regards -- Markus
tdwg-tapir mailing list tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
tdwg-tapir mailing list tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir
tdwg-tapir mailing list tdwg-tapir@lists.tdwg.org http://lists.tdwg.org/mailman/listinfo/tdwg-tapir