Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Well, that's a potential workaround, if both clients and servers know to > use it. I don't know enough about WebDAV autoversioning; is that a > specified behaviour (e.g., submit an ETag and then do INM in a > subsequent retry)? If you do two PUTs with If-Match request header specifying the same Etag, the second one will fail if the first one succeeded (that's HTTP, any RFC3253 server that doesn't behave that way would be non-compliant). > My concern is more regarding the process; having one RFC change the > semantics of a protocol element in another, widely-deployed RFC seems > like a no-no, at least without explicitly updating the other spec. Agreed. The question is: does it? Note that it only applies to a very specific auto-versioning behaviour and it's impact on the resource's live properties. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 23:59:08 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 June 2008 08:04:29 GMT