|
|
Dear Rostislav,
it's nice to see implementing DC in LDAP has been taken up.
Some questions: Is there a specific syntactical reason for the notation in particular
the choice capitalization in LDAP?
DC implementations in XML binding are rather sensitive in this respect - From this there is some (pedagogical) argument
to use xml notation - if possible - as default.
What is the role of the proposed Container for DC?
Wouldn't it be possible to associate dc terms to each other using LDAP dc-container?
Section 2 in its current form does not allow associations - is this correct reading?
There doesn't seem a formal LDAP definition for dc with qualifiers -
Do i understand correctly, that the proposal says: Qualifiers commute?
One would be tempted to have DCTERMSextent as LDAP attribute.
It's not clear from the proposed coding, whether the refinements are
actually defined as dcterm or whether some locally defined refinement is in use.
How a client with knowledge is supposed to deal with qualifiers.
RFC2596 has some thoughts about matching rules for language qualification.
|
|
|
|