RE: Don't copy live properties

This one isn't easy. 

As I discussed previously
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/1998OctDec/0303.html), it
is my personal opinion that the reasons for live properties have to do with
performance issues with HTTP. 

It made us do something that I now believe has very serious ramifications on
the ability of people to innovate using HTTP and upon the future
extensibility of the protocol.

So how does one make the trade off? Until we fix HTTP I guess the answer is
fairly obvious. Who cares if you have a perfect protocol if no one can
efficiently implement it?

Maybe we will fix this next time. In the meantime, if I was designing a
WebDAV extension I would do my best to stay away from using properties. 

	If you can't, you can't. 

		But I bet in most cases, you can.

				Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Masinter [mailto:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 31, 1998 6:31 PM
> To: Yaron Goland; 'Jim Davis'; w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Don't copy live properties
> 
> 
> I think the way out of the live property quandary is not to try to
> overspecify server behavior, but rather, to reduce client dependence
> on server behavior.
> 
> Despite the useful goal of wanting server predictability, you
> might not always accomplish it, and it's not a goal that
> requires you to be uncompromising about it.
> 
> I don't think it is possible to specify server behavior on COPY
> when applied to live properties. So I think the standard should
> say that it is unspecified. It's not required, it's not outlawed,
> it's just unspecified. Clients shouldn't depend on it.
> 
> Similarly, for all of the reasons given for inventing live
> properties in the first place, don't think it is a good idea
> to "outlaw" live properties. However, interoperable
> clients shouldn't depend on them.
> 
> Larry
> -- 
> http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
>

Received on Friday, 1 January 1999 17:54:03 UTC