Wilfredo, does it make a difference that CalDAV specifies special ETag behavior only on Calendar Component resource items (not for all HTTP resources)? lisa On Jun 19, 2006, at 12:58 PM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote: > 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. > > -wsv > > > 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 Tuesday, 20 June 2006 15:13:56 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 June 2008 08:04:29 GMT