W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2004

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

From: Brian Korver <briank@xythos.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 17:04:39 -0800
Message-Id: <77EAC42D-4A47-11D9-8831-000A95AACED2@xythos.com>
To: 'Webdav WG' <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>

I strongly agree that text like this -- text that explains the rough
consensus on how properties interact with bindings -- should appear
in the bind spec (ignoring whether or not this exact text represents
the rough consensus).


On Dec 6, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Jim Whitehead wrote:
> I think it would be good to include the following language in the bind
> specification:
> Note that, consistent with [RFC2518], the value of a dead property is
> independent of the number of bindings to its host resource, and of the 
> path
> submitted to PROPFIND. Since live properties can be aribtrary 
> computational
> processes, they MAY vary depending on path or number of bindings, but 
> NOT do this unless the definition of the live property explicitly 
> includes
> this dependency.
> Here I avoided adding new requirements in areas already covered by 
> 2518, but
> did add requirements for the new situation raised by the BIND 
> specification.
> - Jim
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
>> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 10:56 AM
>> To: Julian Reschke
>> Cc: Webdav WG
>> Subject: Re: [Bug 3] Bindings draft should specify if all
>> properties MUST have same value on all bindings
>> I don't think everybody else agrees that there is no problem.
>>  I have only heard a couple people directly address this issue.
>> The last time we discussed this (this fall but also way
>> earlier), we did come to rough consensus that properties,
>> even live properties, must have the same value no matter
>> which binding is used to request the value of the property.
>> (I am not sure I agree with the conclusion, but I agree there
>> was rough consensus.)
>> Now I'm saying that it's not clear in the spec that this is
>> required and we should put it in the spec.  This is a
>> different issue (what should be in the spec) than the
>> previous issue ( what should be
>> allowed) although clearly one follows from the other.   In
>> the message
>> you point to, Geoff and Jason and yourself addressed the
>> "what should be allowed" issue.  Now let's discuss "what
>> should be in the spec".
>> Lisa
>> On Dec 6, 2004, at 10:26 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>> Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>>> This bug/issue has been repeatedly closed "worksforme".  I do not
>>>> agree that the issue is closed.  What is our model for
>> whether a bug
>>>> can be closed or not?
>>> Well, it has also been re-opened, with which *I* don't agree. What
>>> does this tell us? BugZilla is just a tool for keeping track of
>>> issues, but it does not help defining rough consensus.
>>> As stated before, a situation where a single voice continues to
>>> re-raise the same issue, but everybody else appears to agree that
>>> there is no problem, seems to be exactly the case where the term
>>> "rough consensus" applies.
>>> See also
>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2004OctDec/
>>> 0025.html>.
>>> Best regards, Julian
>>> --
>>> <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Friday, 10 December 2004 01:05:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:33 UTC