W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: ETags?

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:50:50 -0800
Message-Id: <8E1C802F-6D56-11D9-961E-000A95B2BB72@osafoundation.org>
To: WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

I wish it were so easy to write short, clear specifications that could 
be unambiguously understood and implemented.  I wish features could be 

However, bindings together with existing WebDAV features, while mostly 
orthogonal, have a few interesting, confusing or important 

This isn't an unlimited set of work, folks.  All these issues have been 
raised before this last call period (except maybe one?) and it isn't an 
ever growing set.  We're talking about maybe half a page of new text to 
clarify important interactions to implementors, and then we're done and 
we'll have a really good spec.


On Jan 22, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Elias Sinderson wrote:

> Thanks Roy, that's an excellent point that I hadn't considered. For 
> the record, I am no longer opposed to the spec remaining silent on the 
> issue.
> Cheers,
> Elias
> ________________________________
> 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.
>> ....Roy
Received on Sunday, 23 January 2005 15:51:03 UTC

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