W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: ETags?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:32:43 +0100
Message-ID: <41F2AA5B.6070503@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> On Jan 21, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Elias Sinderson wrote:
> 
>>> [...] Including a single sentence which states that clients can't 
>>> necessarily depend on live properties being the same on different 
>>> bindings to a given resource.
>>
>>
>> ... doesn't seem like an undue amount of verbiage in the spec.
> 
> 
> It does to me, and I guess an explanation is in order.  Let's
> say that a given live property definition does specify that its
> value must remain the same on different bindings to the same
> resource.  In that case, the client can depend on them being
> the same and that simple little addition creates an unnecessary
> contradiction between what should have been orthogonal
> specifications.  There is no reason for the binding specification
> to make blanket statements when there are no conditions that hold
> for all live properties -- that is why we have property definitions.
> 
> Developers don't need any more guidance here.  What they need are
> shorter specifications so that they don't have to waste their time
> digging through meaningless tripe just to understand the interface.

Thanks for the explanation. I do agree that the statement as proprosed 
is not only unnecessary but actually harmful.

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Saturday, 22 January 2005 19:33:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT