Re: ETags?

I understand your position.  I just disagree with it, for the
reasons that I (and Roy and Julian) have explained in our email.

Cheers,
Geoff

Lisa wrote on 01/27/2005 09:31:00 PM:

> 
> Yes, but as I explained in this email --
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0065.html
> 
> -- the bindings draft introduces the possibility for client behavior 
> which could be harmful to interoperability unless the way that ETags 
> interact with bindings is defined.
> 
> Since bindings first introduces this possibility, that's our best 
> choice for a document in which to resolve that potential 
> interoperability problem.
> 
> Lisa
> 
> On Jan 27, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> 
> > I completely agree with Roy.
> >
> > If something needs to be clarified about the behavior of etags,
> > post a bug against the spec which defines the behavior of etags
> > (which is not the binding specification).
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Geoff
> >
> > Roy wrote on 01/27/2005 08:29:51 PM:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jan 27, 2005, at 5:26 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ok, then
> >>>
> >>> "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. Also, the value of the 'getetag' property MAY 
be
> >>> different for a single resource depending on which binding path is
> >>> submitted to the PROPFIND request.
> >>
> >> No, the getetag property and the ETag value have no relation
> >> whatsoever with the bindings specification or its methods,
> >> and there is no reason whatsoever to add meaningless statements
> >> to reiterate that fact.
> >>
> >> ....Roy
> >>
> >>
> 
>