- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:49:02 +0200
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On ons, 2007-08-01 at 10:20 +0200, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Henrik Nordstrom wrote: >>> ... >>> It's a bit special indeed as it doesn't act on the requested resource >>> itself.. For PROPFIND the requested variant is clearly the PROPFIND >>> results which is different from the request-URI resource.. >>> ... >> My understanding was that the requested variant is independent of the >> request method. > > Right.. it is. Or at least thats the most intelligble definition of it. > Doesn't make much sense in PROPFIND, but then a whole lot doesn't.. Right. > So a new header is required for PROPFIND to be able to return the ETag > of the PROPFIND entity. I'd propose Content-ETag for this purpose. If we could use Content-Location for the location (which I don't think), I'd be +1 on that. > I dislike trying to add new "URI" header formats with their own parsing > requirements, which is my main objection to your new proposed header. Understood. Note that the header format is borrowed from the "Link" header, though. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 17:49:24 UTC