[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: SUBCLASSING, again
At 01:04 PM 2/12/2004, Kathleen Dally wrote:
>kd: Could you please give an example of one of the special cases?
An auxiliary class which would be mandatory for the entry to belong
to (because it was a supertype of the entry's structural class) is
a special case. Section 8 describes auxiliary classes as supporting
optional augmentation of a entry, and section 12 is relies heavily
upon this.
To make clear in the specification that some auxiliary classes in
some situations are mandatory would require significant rewriting of
these, and possible other (14?), sections. That was the alternative
I offered to the WG during WG Last Call. That alternative was rejected.
Kurt
- References:
- SUBCLASSING, again
- From: Kathleen Dally <kdally@mitre.org>
- Re: SUBCLASSING, again
- From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: SUBCLASSING, again
- From: Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>
- Re: SUBCLASSING, again
- From: Kathleen Dally <kdally@mitre.org>
- Re: SUBCLASSING, again
- From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: SUBCLASSING, again
- From: Kathleen Dally <kdally@mitre.org>
- Re: SUBCLASSING, again
- From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: SUBCLASSING, again
- From: Kathleen Dally <kdally@mitre.org>
- Re: SUBCLASSING, again
- From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: SUBCLASSING, again
- From: Kathleen Dally <kdally@mitre.org>