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

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 14:41:46 +0200
Message-ID: <45094E0A.1010204@gmx.de>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
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>

Jamie Lokier schrieb:
> 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,

again: my understanding is that proxies are not allowed to cache the 
response from a PUT, thus this isn't a problem.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 12:41:53 GMT

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