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

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

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:11:33 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20060914111133.GD942@mail.shareable.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Lisa Dusseault schrieb:
> >
> >>That's incorrect, at least as the Xythos client is concerned (see 
> >><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006AprJun/0090.html>).
> >>
> >
> >I can't really see how we disagree here.  If the server returns a strong 
> >ETag, the Xythos client assumes that the content was written as sent.  
> >Later, when the client attempts to refresh its cache, if the ETag is 
> >still the same, the client happily continues using the entity that it 
> >PUT.   Thus, a user can refresh and refresh and refresh, and still not 
> >see quite what the server has stored and other clients/users see.
> 
> Yes, but if the server *doesn't* return an ETag (as mandated by CalDAV), 
> it simply uses the Last-Modified time stamp again. That is, it doesn't 
> work at all with servers rewriting the content upon PUT, no matter 
> whether they return an ETag or not.

But why not a weak Etag, along with "Cache-Control:
max-age=0,must-revalidate"?  (Or "proxy-revalidate" if you don't mind
_that particular_ client reusing the sent entity).

-- Jamie
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 11:11:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:46 GMT