- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:59:30 -0500
- To: Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11/29/05, Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 11:05 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > If a server like this would return an ETag upon PUT, would it apply to > > the PUT request body, or the server's internal representation returned > > in a subsequent GET? > > I think that the simple rule is that when responding to a PUT, if the > server returns an Etag, then it should be the same value that would have > been returned in a GET of the resource that immediately followed the > PUT. My understanding is that an ETag is associated only with the provided representation (and the resource whose state it represents); in this case the one in the PUT response. What's suggested above then, would seem to be a redefinition of ETag semantics. But perhaps it's already common enough on PUT responses to warrant standardizing despite the drawbacks, I don't know. I do agree that the "requested variant" language is problematic though. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2005 04:59:38 UTC