Hi,
in Section 2.6 we say:
"Consistent with [RFC4918], the value of a dead property MUST be
independent of the number of bindings to its host resource or of the
path submitted to PROPFIND. On the other hand, the behaviour for each
live property depends on its individual definition (for example, see
[RFC3744], Section 5, paragraph 2)." --
<
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-23.html#rfc.section.2.6>
Alexey mentioned that it would be useful to clarify the example, and in
particular also to mention a live property that may vary depending on
access path.
This issue is tracked as
<
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-webdav-bind-latest.html#rfc.issue.ex-live-property>,
and for now I have extended the paragraph to read:
"Consistent with [RFC4918], the value of a dead property MUST be
independent of the number of bindings to its host resource or of the
path submitted to PROPFIND. On the other hand, the behaviour for each
live property depends on its individual definition (for example, see
[RFC3744], Section 5, paragraph 2 for a case where the value is
independent of path and bindings, and [RFC4918], Section 8.8 for a
discussion about the live properties DAV:getetag and
DAV:getlastmodified, which may behave differently)."
Feedback appreciated,
Julian
