W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2006

Re: [Ietf-caldav] Last Call comment on Etag requirements in draft-dusseault-caldav-12

From: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:58:28 -0700
Message-Id: <66682F0C-92F3-45E9-B59A-FB5D34561913@apple.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

   Sure, OK, so some clients are broken today because they make some  
assumptions that are only valid on some server implementations.

   We know we need a solution; I just don't agree that CalDAV is the  
right place to specify it.  I do understand how it's convenient.


On Jun 19, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> 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.
Received on Monday, 19 June 2006 19:59:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:39 UTC