Hi, in Section 2.6 we say: "Consistent with [RFC4918], 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 its individual definition (for example, see [RFC3744], Section 5, paragraph 2)." -- <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23.html#rfc.section.2.6> Alexey mentioned that it would be useful to clarify the example, and in particular also to mention a live property that may vary depending on access path. This issue is tracked as <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.issue.ex-live-property>, and for now I have extended the paragraph to read: "Consistent with [RFC4918], 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 its individual definition (for example, see [RFC3744], Section 5, paragraph 2 for a case where the value is independent of path and bindings, and [RFC4918], Section 8.8 for a discussion about the live properties DAV:getetag and DAV:getlastmodified, which may behave differently)." Feedback appreciated, JulianReceived on Friday, 22 May 2009 15:18:58 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:17 GMT