Re: Stored queries.

Would STORED-VQUERY be a mandatory part of the capability reply? If so, I 
agree with the method, this is what I proposed for handling CALSCALE 
(especially for non-Gregorian scales) some time ago.

I would like to see a call for consensus on this issue (_and_ CALSCALE for 
that matter). CALSCALE is in the open-groupware bugzilla as an issue, and 
this probably should be also.

I would also like to ask: are there other capabilities we've overlooked in 
the GET-CAPABILITY request/response? And (although I am certain I do not 
want to propose we do it in this version of CAP) is the response getting so 
large that we should group capabilities into families and have responses 
for whole families of capabilities?

Tim

At 09:57 PM 2/9/04 -0700, you wrote:

>Bruce and I had a very small private dialog about stored queries.
>
>Bruce agrees that if we (a) add STORED-VQUERY to the capability
>reply and (b) add a new REQUEST-STATUS code to mean "Unsupported command
>or property", then he would not object.
>
>So I *think* that is now a non-issue.
>
>Comments Please !!!
>
>--
>
>Doug Royer                     |   http://INET-Consulting.com
>-------------------------------|-----------------------------
>[email protected]                 | Office: (208)520-4044
>http://Royer.com/People/Doug   | Fax:    (866)594-8574
>                               | Cell:   (208)520-4044
>
>              We Do Standards - You Need Standards
>
>
>
>