[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: More on DIT content rules

Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: 
At 06:49 AM 10/30/2003, Jim Sermersheim wrote:

I think some implementators take the view that their servers
have implicit DIT content rules which allow an entry to belong to any
auxiliary class but choose not to publish these rules in the subschema.
I think implementors taking this view should publish their rules
in the subschema so that clients will know which auxiliary classes
may be present in entries they update.


Yes! Those implicit DIT content rules SHOULD be published in subschema!

Ciao, Michael.