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

Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?

To: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Subject: Re: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
From: David Boreham <dboreham@netscape.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:47:09 -0800
References: <CB6657D3A5E0D111A97700805FFE65875D7AC6@RED-MSG-51>
Resent-date: Mon, 16 Nov 1998 10:43:48 -0800 (PST)
Resent-from: ietf-ldapext@netscape.com
Resent-message-id: <"JnsmU1.0.gp3.X97Ks"@glacier>
Resent-sender: ietf-ldapext-request@netscape.com

Paul Leach wrote:

I wouldn't mind having an LDIF standard, but IMHO it would be nice to
indicate that XML was the preferred way going forward. How many ways do we
need to describe attribute/value pairs?

Well, since XML was introduced into the discussion, clearly N+1.

References:
- RE: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
  - From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Status of LDIF and Changelog?
Next by Date: Re: Question on draft-ietf-ldapext-ldap-c-api-01.txt
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread