W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: PUT vs strong ETags

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 23:59:30 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0511292059w25ed690dj7b24e4077f21b6f5@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:41 GMT