Re: Boundary conditions in range

[Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 06:19:41 -0600, Brett Lindsley
<brett.lindsley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Sec 3.1.3.1 of -03 protocol spec indicates "The response to a collection
> request MUST
> be a collection document, all of whose 'member' elements fall within the
> requested range."
> 
> The "fall within the requested range" should be more clearly specified.
> If a person
> interprets this a lower < updated < upper, then there may be boundary issues
> if an updated time falls on an exact range value. A better definition would
> be lower <= updated < upper which would more clearly specify members
> that "have updated dates greater than or equal to the lower boundary but
> less than the upper boundary".

That works for me.

    -joe

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org