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 12:20:06 +0100
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20060914112006.GF942@mail.shareable.org>

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> >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.
> 
> True.  We agree on the facts :)  To me, the implication is that a  
> server that rewrote content would behave best with the Xythos client  
> if it issued one ETag on PUT, then another ETag on server-rewrite.   
> Then the server-rewrite behaves just like a client-rewrite and the  
> Xythos client will eventually download the new content.

Or (near-)equivalently, the PUT response could send the Etag
"this-never-matches".

-- Jamie
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 12:07:49 GMT

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