Lisa Dusseault schrieb: > > On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:32 AM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote: > >> I agree with Julian. >> >> As we've mentioned before, Apache returns a weak ETag on PUT, which >> turns into a strong ETag sometime later. If clients rely on being >> able to use that ETag on a GET later, they won't work with Apache, and >> IIRC, Apache is pretty popular. >> >> The ETag requirements in the draft are what many clients authors >> might *like* to be the common case, but it is most certainly not so >> today. > > It's worse than that; many client authors *assumed* that to be the case, > and implemented and deployed their clients assuming that if the client > receives a strong ETag in response to a PUT, it has no further work to > do to synchronize that resource. So the deployed base says that *is* > the case today. I don't feel our document makes this situation any > worse than the deployed base of clients already does. > > Lisa Again: do you have any evidence of *shipping* clients making that assumption? Best regards, JulianReceived on Monday, 19 June 2006 19:41:21 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:22:14 GMT