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

Re: PUT vs strong ETags

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 02:44:30 +0100
Message-ID: <43D6D7FE.4020209@gmx.de>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Scott Lawrence <scott@skrb.org>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

OK,

how about moving the statement about ETAG-on-201 (10.2.2) into thee 2xx 
introduction, and make it both more generic (applying to more than 201) 
and precise (stating that it's the ETag you'd get upon HEAD)? So...:


Section 10.2.1., para. 0:
OLD:

  10.2.1.  200 OK

NEW:

     The response MAY contain an ETag response header field indicating the
     current value of the entity tag (Section 14.19) for the requested
     variant.  The value SHOULD be the same as the one returned upon a
     subsequent HEAD request addressing the same variant.

  10.2.1.  200 OK

(add new par. at the end of 2xx intro)

Section 10.2.3., para. 0:
OLD:

     A 201 response MAY contain an ETag response header field indicating
     the current value of the entity tag for the requested variant just
     created, see Section 14.19.

  10.2.3.  202 Accepted

NEW:

  10.2.3.  202 Accepted


(remove statement about Etag in response from 201 description).

Feedback appreciated, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2006 01:46:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:42 GMT