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

I also would prefer to remain silent, but I can live with this text
(I prefer the shorter version).

Cheers,
Geoff

Julian wrote on 12/13/2004 05:09:17 PM:

> 
> Jim Whitehead wrote:
> > Let me suggest the following language. I think we all agree this is a
> > minimum level statement on the issue -- where we differ is in how to 
go
> > beyond this level (Julian wants to change the SHOULD to a MUST , while 
I'd
> > like to add an additional MAY).
> > 
> > Proposed language:
> > 
> > Note that, consistent with [RFC2518], the value of a dead property is 
> > independent of the number of bindings to its host resource or of the 
> > path submitted to PROPFIND. Similarly consistent with [RFC2518], the
> > value of a live property SHOULD be independent of the number of
> > bindings to its host resource, and of the path submitted to PROPFIND.
> > 
> > The reason for the two almost-identical sentences is to address 
Julian's
> > desire to not include spec. language that's obvious from a careful 
reading
> > of 2518. I personally prefer the following, more compact construction:
> > 
> > Consistent with [RFC2518] the value of a dead property MUST be, and 
the
> > value of a live property SHOULD be, independent of the number of 
bindings to
> > its host resource or of the path submitted to PROPFIND.
> 
> I personally would prefer to stay silent about the topic, but if 
> everybody else is agreeing, I'll be happy to add one of these 
> (preferrably the latter, shorter one).
> 
> Feedback appreciated,
> 
> Julian
> 
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
>