Re: ETags?

I agree with Roy's rationale and conclusion, and support the
removal of the reference to live properties in section 2.6.

Cheers,
Geoff

Roy wrote on 01/19/2005 06:38:28 PM:

> 
> On Jan 19, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> >
> > I heartily agree with everything Roy says here.
> >
> > Roy: WRT your concern about the statement about live properties,
> > would it be OK instead to say:
> >
> >     2.6  PROPFIND and Bindings
> >
> >      Consistent with [RFC2518] the value of a dead property of a
> >      given resource MUST be independent of path to that resource
> >      submitted to PROPFIND.  The value of a live property SHOULD
> >      be independent of the path submitted to PROPFIND, unless
> >      the definition of the property explicitly states otherwise.
> 
> I don't like meaningless SHOULDs.  How is an implementation supposed
> to test compliance with such a requirement?  I would prefer that the
> specification say nothing about the value of a live property,
> since live properties are (by definition) not controlled by the
> client and thus not subject to interoperability constraints aside
> from whatever may be in their definition.  The only thing that can
> be legitimately said is that
> 
>    "The value of a live property MUST comply with the definition
>     of that property."
> 
> which is, of course, a completely vacuous statement and not
> subject to the bindings specification.
> 
> ....Roy
>