RE: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings

I think it would be good to include the following language in the bind
specification:

Note that, consistent with [RFC2518], the value of a dead property is
independent of the number of bindings to its host resource, and of the path
submitted to PROPFIND. Since live properties can be aribtrary computational
processes, they MAY vary depending on path or number of bindings, but SHOULD
NOT do this unless the definition of the live property explicitly includes
this dependency.


Here I avoided adding new requirements in areas already covered by 2518, but
did add requirements for the new situation raised by the BIND specification.

- Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:56 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: Webdav WG
> Subject: Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all 
> properties MUST have same value on all bindings
> 
> 
> I don't think everybody else agrees that there is no problem. 
>  I have only heard a couple people directly address this issue.
> 
> The last time we discussed this (this fall but also way 
> earlier), we did come to rough consensus that properties, 
> even live properties, must have the same value no matter 
> which binding is used to request the value of the property.  
> (I am not sure I agree with the conclusion, but I agree there 
> was rough consensus.)
> 
> Now I'm saying that it's not clear in the spec that this is 
> required and we should put it in the spec.  This is a 
> different issue (what should be in the spec) than the 
> previous issue ( what should be  
> allowed) although clearly one follows from the other.   In 
> the message  
> you point to, Geoff and Jason and yourself addressed the 
> "what should be allowed" issue.  Now let's discuss "what 
> should be in the spec".
> 
> Lisa
> 
> On Dec 6, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> 
> > Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >> This bug/issue has been repeatedly closed "worksforme".  I do not 
> >> agree that the issue is closed.  What is our model for 
> whether a bug 
> >> can be closed or not?
> >
> > Well, it has also been re-opened, with which *I* don't agree. What 
> > does this tell us? BugZilla is just a tool for keeping track of 
> > issues, but it does not help defining rough consensus.
> >
> > As stated before, a situation where a single voice continues to 
> > re-raise the same issue, but everybody else appears to agree that 
> > there is no problem, seems to be exactly the case where the term 
> > "rough consensus" applies.
> >
> > See also
> > <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/
> > 0025.html>.
> >
> > Best regards, Julian
> >
> > --
> > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>

Received on Monday, 6 December 2004 19:17:49 UTC