W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: i22: ETags on PUT responses

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:13:50 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1199715230.26411.18.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
On mån, 2008-01-07 at 14:24 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:

> > It's also not clear how to handle ETag then a client makes a transition
> >>from Request-URI to Content-Location URI for the purpose of authoring a
> > negotiated resource or similar.
> 
> Good point. That would require a new HTTP feature, right?

Not sure. I don't think so. Just clarification I guess.

The natural thing for most implementers I guess is to assume equalivence
between the two locations (Request-URI and Content-Location) when moving
from Request-URI to a direct Content-Location reference, but the correct
thing here is to discard any response received from the negotiated
Request-URI when moving to the direct Content-Location URI, and only at
most use ETag as a "weak" comparision locally in the client to verify
that the new response makes sense without using it in any HTTP
conditions.


But yes, there may be a need for a HTTP extension defining reliable URI
namespaces, but that's probably outside our charter and more a topic for
possibly the next generation WebDAV trying to do things more inline with
HTTP.. 

  - How to express negotiated resources better
  - How to express when a resource exists at multiple URIs
  - Derived/related resources such as properties of the resource
  - And to fit all this into both addressability and cache
invalidations..

Regards
Henrik

Received on Monday, 7 January 2008 14:13:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:36 GMT