Re: thinking about etags

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> ...
> I suppose it could fit for WEBDAV as well, but don't understand the
> fineprint of WEBDAT well enough to say if it fits well or not.. but I
> guess not as WEBDAV is .. well.. different.
> ...

The only difference in WebDAV is that PROPFIND and PROPPATCH essentially 
add a second set of resources that share the same URIs as the "GETtable" 
content.

As long as the definition of "requested variant" solely depends on the 
request headers, this is not an issue, except that you really can't use 
ETags as cache validators for properties.

*Changing* "requested variant" to include method name and request body 
solves that issue, but IMHO causes lots of new problems.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 11:49:05 UTC