Re: New "200 OK" status codes, PATCH & PROPFIND

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> ...
>> 210 Information returned
> 
> No way.  That is what Content-Location provides.  We don't need a
> Content-Etag header field -- the Etag response header field would
> always have the same value.

I have to disagree here. This is not what RFC2616 says, which defines 
the Etag in terms of the "requested variant". Let's clarify this one first!

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 20:22:01 UTC