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 12:17:21 +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: <20060914111721.GE942@mail.shareable.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> The problem here is the definition of "semantic effect". It all depends 
> on the client. An XCAP client will not consider XML reformatting to be 
> important, as long as the Infoset is preserved.

Even if there is a proxy cache in the network between the XCAP client
and the server, and the proxy cache does partial discard of large
entities, and byte-range requests (with If-Match) to refresh them?

I think even an XCAP client would be lost in that case.

-- 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