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: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 08:13:44 -0700
Message-Id: <80E35CD5-943D-4BE2-BA31-8987E6A4F634@osafoundation.org>
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: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@apple.com>

Wilfredo, does it make a difference that CalDAV specifies special  
ETag behavior only on Calendar Component resource items (not for all  
HTTP resources)?


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 UTC

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