- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:15:03 -0400
- To: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Arve Bersvendsen" <arveb@opera.com>, "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-appformats@w3.org
On 9/19/07, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote: > > Stick with etags. They work, and the tooling support is already > > pretty good. No need to have a widget-specific mechanism when a > > generic one gets the job done. > > But what if the UA does not have an etag for the resource as it was > not acquired over HTTP? For example, you gave me the widget on a CD or > sent it to me as an email attachment. Are you saying that the version > should be the etag? You could do it the other way around; make the etag the version. But as Ian noted, it would opaque, so the client wouldn't be able to do version-y things to it, like check if it were greater or less than a previous value. > > Eg. config.xml: > <widget version="ImReallyAnETagdsfafddsa2" /> > > I'm not really following.... I'm saying that version information isn't needed. It can be treated as an implementation detail because what it means isn't exposed to a consumer. If I were doing this, my root element might look like; <widget src="http://example.org/widget/foo.widget" /> Then even if I get the widget from a CD, I still have its URI and etag, so can open an HTTP connection to example.org and download the latest version. You could also add an "etag" attribute there, but that would just be an optimization as it would allow the server to return 304 if you've got the latest version. But that's just me 8-) Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2007 18:15:09 UTC