W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2007

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:25:30 +0200
Message-ID: <46B864BA.10402@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
> On Aug 6, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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!
> 
> I already defined it, and yes it says the same thing.  The requested
> variant is the same whether the method is GET propURI or PROPFIND resURI.
> If an etag exists for the properties, it is going to have the same value
> whether those properties are retrieved via GET propURI or PROPFIND resURI.

I agree that that definition (as seen in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2007JulSep/0199.html>) 
makes sense, although to make it work with PROPFIND/SEARCH/REPORT it 
would also need to include the request *body*.

However, I'm not 100% sure there's consensus for it. The major change 
here is that it takes the request method into account. Code that relies 
on it being method agnostic would break.

(Such as a PROPPATCH with an If-Match header using a cache validator 
previously returned in GET).

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 12:25:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT