Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all properties MUST have same value on all bindings

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I took 'DAV:acl' as an example because it's one we're familiar with and 
> we can see the consequences of error.  It's other live properties I'm 
> worried about.
> (BTW, where does RFC3744 say that?  I see lots of places where 'DAV:acl' 
> is defined with respect to a resource and the language is fairly precise 
> about resources and URLs, so one might believe that this behavior is 
> implicit, but I can't see where it says anything about bindings.)

It doesn't need to:

<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc3744.html#rfc.section.5.p.2>

>>> I also worry that it's not enough for us to say that dead properties  
>>> MUST be the same value no matter which binding is addressed but live  
>>> properties MAY vary.  We don't have a reliable way for the client to  
>>> tell which properties are dead and which are live.  Still, I could 
>>> live  with that.
>>
>>
>> Well, as you just pointed out, the difference between dead and live 
>> properties is fuzzy. Also, the statement as proposed, sort of 
>> *encourages* implementers to have live properties varying by binding. 
>> IMHO, they shouldn't (as properties are part of the state of the 
>> resource or computed based on the state of a resource), and thus 
>> should not vary at all. My impression from earlier discussion was that 
>> you don't buy that point of view, so I haven't tried hard to get it 
>> into the spec. Should I now?
>>
> Even if I disagree with the conclusion -- perhaps *particularly* because 
> I disagree with the conclusion and others may also -- I feel strongly 
> that the decision should be reflected as a requirement in the 
> specification.

However, that requires that there *is* a decision. As far as I can tell, 
there's currently no consensus for any specific statement.

Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2004 18:00:50 UTC