Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Oct 19, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Brian Smith wrote: > > Julian Reschke wrote: > >> So my proposal would be to stay silent on this, and let the base > >> spec define it. > > > > I agree, but IMO, there should *never* be a fallback to Last-Modified > > because Last-Modified only has 1-second resolution. If the server > > supports PATCH then it can definitely provide an ETag. > > 1-second resolution is as good as nanosecond resolution as soon > as that second is history, and in practice both are useless for > tagging dynamic content that is generated during a response. Not really. If you have nanosecond resolution then you can have monotonically increasing (thus *unique*) timestamps on every resource. Actually, I often implement ETags that way. With one-second resolution you can get something similar by sleeping during an edit until the timestamp changes, I guess. > Using last-modified as a fallback is always better than not > using any conditional at all. Yes, well I was thinking that the server should just refuse all requests without an If-Match header. Unconditional PATCH makes very little sense for most uses. I guess section 2.2 already allows a server to do that (by returning a 409 response). Regards, BrianReceived on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 01:39:00 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:40 GMT