Re: ETags?

I agree with Elias and Julian about the excellence of Roy's point,
and would point out that in my opinion, it applies to most/all
of the other requests for "guidance" in the binding spec for the
behavior of functionality defined in other specifications.

Cheers,
Geoff

Elias wrote on 01/22/2005 10:38:02 PM:

> Thanks Roy, that's an excellent point that I hadn't considered. For the 
> record, I am no longer opposed to the spec remaining silent on the 
issue.
> ________________________________
> 
> 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.
> >
> > ....Roy
> >
> 
>