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

Re: thinking about etags

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:48:48 +0200
Message-ID: <46D2BA20.1060204@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

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" 

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC