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

RE: ETags?

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:53:04 -0500
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFAA1290C6.BB1C687A-ON85256F93.0061B90F-85256F93.00623DAA@us.ibm.com>
If we were discussing clarifications of what the BINDING spec is
saying about features introduced by the BINDING specification,
I would completely agree with you that those clarifications should
be added to the BINDING specification.

The question is whether the binding specification should clarify
features defined in another specification (e.g., LOCK's, ACL's,
live properties, etc.).  In particular, if there are clarifications,
should they be inserted into whatever specification is currently
being published, or should they be placed on the clarification list
for the "bis" version of the specification in which the feature
being clarified is defined?

Cheers,
Geoff

"Cox, Roger" <Roger.Cox@netapp.com> wrote on 01/24/2005 12:32:03 PM:

> As an implementor, I found 2518 to be an excellent specification. 
> But sometimes, even though the authors knew what they meant, I 
> didn't know what they meant. Any time the authors of a spec undergo 
> any confusion or disagreement about the meaning of their spec, or 
> discover such confusion among the readers of that spec, they've 
> received a hint that the specification is not as clear as they might
> have thought, and therefore vulnerable to interoperability problems.
> 
> It seems to me that if the time and effort to clarify the meaning 
> have been spent, it is an enourmous waste not to make that 
> clarification available to potential implementors.
> 
>   -- Roger
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey M Clemm [mailto:geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 9:00 AM
> To: WebDAV WG
> Subject: 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
> > >
> > 
> > 
Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 17:53:44 GMT

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