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

Re: BIND and live property value consistency

From: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 12:24:55 -0400
To: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF6DCE72D9.E7D5352F-ON85257038.005A07D4-85257038.005A2B0B@us.ibm.com>
The proposed additional text is fine with me, although I'd probably
delete the phrase "which in turn should define how the property value
behaves", since I believe it is redundant.

Cheers,
Geoff


Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 07/08/2005 07:43:31 AM:

> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> > 
> > As Julian states below, this is a very reasonable thread to pursue in
> > the context of RFC2518bis, and given that RFC2518bis
> > is a current high priority deliverable for this workgroup, it baffles 
me 
> > why we
> > are having this discussion in a BIND protocol thread.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
> 
> Same here.
> 
> Below is a proposed modest addition to 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.
> html#rfc.section.2.6>, 
> which currently reads:
> 
> "Consistent with [RFC2518] the value of a dead property MUST be 
> independent of the number of bindings to its host resource or of the 
> path submitted to PROPFIND."
> 
> Proposed text:
> 
> "Consistent with [RFC2518], the value of a dead property MUST be 
> independent of the number of bindings to its host resource or of the 
> path submitted to PROPFIND.  On the other hand, the behaviour for each 
> live property depends on it's individual definition, which in turn 
> should define how the property value behaves (for example, see 
> [RFC3744], section 5, paragraph 2)."
> 
> Feedback appreciated,
> 
> Julian
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 16:25:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:09 GMT