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

Re: Etag-on-write, 2nd attempt (== IETF draft 01)

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:06:46 -0700
Message-Id: <14270261-D31B-4A1F-9DB9-CC77C31A24F2@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>

On Sep 13, 2006, at 5:46 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>>> On Sep 13, 2006, at 24:55, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>>> It's technically correct to say that servers are allowed to rewrite
>>>> content.  However, existing deployed offline-cache clients assume
>>>> that they do not.
> Well, I have a server that does exactly that, as CVS is expanding  
> keywords like $Id$ on commit.

And also returns a strong ETag on PUT when making these changes?   
Even if so, that sounds like one of those cases which, if the client  
caches the resource entity they PUT, whether that's for viewing now  
or modification later, will work reasonably well.  Not perfectly --  
clients won't have the replacement value for those keywords, which  
might be nice for the user viewing the resource.

So just how do your clients handle this?  do they have offline caches?

> Would it be OK for a server to return a 205 Reset Content with the  
> Etag ?
> That way the client would know that a refetch is in order.

That seems good to me so far.

Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 16:07:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:40 UTC