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

Re: [google-gears-eng] Re: Deploying new expectation-extensions

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:19:55 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, Charles Fry <fry@google.com>, gears-eng@googlegroups.com, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20080916131955.GA1221@shareable.org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> - most of the time, resources that support POST for upload have a 
> GETtable representation
> 
> - these representations (again, most of the time), are not those of 
> previous upload, but a form, a collection listing, or both
> 
> - so the resource posted to has a very different nature from those it 
> creates
> 
> - if, for GET/HEAD, the resource assigns and supports ETags, they have a 
> very different purpose than those assigned for resumable uploads, and 
> those will need to be distinguished upon GET -- so some If-Match headers 
> will cause conneg, some won't
> 
> So my concern is that we use two different types of ETags on the same 
> resource.

I agree, this is a good point.

Why use the Etag header for resumable POSTs?  If Etags are used (and
why not - it's handy not to have to carve out special URL space), I
still don't see any advantage to using the ETag _header_ for it in
resumed POSTs, as opposed to inventing a Resume-POST header.

-- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 13:20:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:54 GMT