Re: ETags?

I am still in favour of the language that was there:

>    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.

Also, I propose additional language for ETags:

"The value of the 'getetag' property (and thus the value of the ETag  
for a resource at that point in time) MAY change when a new binding is  
added to a resource. However, the value MUST be the same for that  
resource independent of the path submitted to PROPFIND."


On Jan 27, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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.
>> Ok, for the record: as Roy has explained to us, the current language  
>> is actively incorrect and harmful, so the first step is to remove it.
>> I'm open to suggestions about anything else we can do. Note that  
>> these suggestions should be made in the form of actual specification  
>> text. If we can get a consensus about one proposal, I'll be happy to  
>> make that change.
> OK, as I haven't heard anything new (in particular no concrete  
> proposal for specification text) I'm closing the issue for now (see  
> < 
> latest.html#rfc.issue.2.6_bindings_vs_properties>).
> Best regards, Julian
> -- 
> <green/>bytes GmbH -- -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 23:58:45 UTC