Re: ETags?

If there were a well-defined (and finite) number of such "guidances",
I could live with it (and it was on that basis that I reluctantly
agreed to adding the "guidance" text about locking).

But as soon as we agree to one such "guidance", a new one is suggested.
I despair of ever getting the BIND protocol published if it is delayed
until it has become a complete "implementation guide".

I noticed that yet another such request for "guidance text" has just been 
posted to the
bug database [bug 71].  I also note that nothing in the "bug" has to
do with any of the methods or properties defined by the binding 
specification,
but is about access control. 

I have nothing against asking for guidance from the mailing list,
but holding a specification hostage until all of your implementation
issues have been addressed by the mailing list seems a bit unreasonable. 

Cheers,
Geoff


Elias wrote on 01/19/2005 09:53:43 PM:
>
> Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> 
> > I agree with Roy's rationale and conclusion, and support the  removal 
> > of the reference to live properties in section 2.6
> 
> So, in effect, the spec will state that dead properties MUST be the same 

> across all bindings to a given resource, and that (by remaining silent 
> on the issue) live properties MAY vary depending on server 
> implementation. I am not oposed to this, however as a guide to client 
> implementors it might be nice to point out that they can't neccessarily 
> depend on live properties being the same across all bindings to a 
resource.