Re: ETags?

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jan 21, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Elias Sinderson wrote:
>>> [...] Including a single sentence which states that clients can't 
>>> necessarily depend on live properties being the same on different 
>>> bindings to a given resource.
>> ... doesn't seem like an undue amount of verbiage in the spec.
> It does to me, and I guess an explanation is in order.  Let's
> say that a given live property definition does specify that its
> value must remain the same on different bindings to the same
> resource.  In that case, the client can depend on them being
> the same and that simple little addition creates an unnecessary
> contradiction between what should have been orthogonal
> specifications.  There is no reason for the binding specification
> to make blanket statements when there are no conditions that hold
> for all live properties -- that is why we have property definitions.
> Developers don't need any more guidance here.  What they need are
> shorter specifications so that they don't have to waste their time
> digging through meaningless tripe just to understand the interface.

Thanks for the explanation. I do agree that the statement as proprosed 
is not only unnecessary but actually harmful.

Best regards, Julian

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

Received on Saturday, 22 January 2005 19:33:42 UTC