Re: ETags?

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> ...
> There are two sections to consider in the bindings draft:
>   2.6  PROPFIND and Bindings
>    Consistent with [RFC2518] the value of a dead property MUST be, and
>    the value of a live property SHOULD be, independent of the number of
>    bindings to its host resource or of the path submitted to PROPFIND.
> which I consider to be in error because live properties are owned
> by the server -- any requirement that they be consistent across
> bindings is wrong.
> ...

OK, re-opening issue "2.6_bindings_vs_properties": 

Best regards, Julian

<green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Friday, 21 January 2005 21:45:37 UTC