Opened 8 years ago

Closed 8 years ago

#10 closed defect (fixed)

We should truncate (entirely) truncation ;-)

Reported by: lear@… Owned by: cyrus@…
Priority: major Milestone:
Component: service Version:
Severity: Active WG Document Keywords:


Section 3.4 discusses how servers may truncate data, justifying that data can go back over 100 years. This is true. What is unclear to me is whether this capability is needed by a client, by a server, or by both. If it is for the client, let me suggest that the data involved is sufficiently small that the server should not force it on the client, but someone might the other way. If it is for the server, I'll admit that because the transactional data is relatively small, I'm still not all that sympathetic.

Change History (2)

comment:1 Changed 8 years ago by lear@…

  • Component set to service
  • Severity changed from Candidate WG Document to Active WG Document

The author has extensively revamped truncation text. Working group participants are encouraged to review this change. The original issue, however, sought justification. In this chair's opinion, extensive discussion determined that truncation was required. I propose to close this issue.

comment:2 Changed 8 years ago by lear@…

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from new to closed

This was revamped. Additional information included in expand response. In the current draft. Any remnants of this issue will be handled in other issues.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.