W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > February 2013

RE: ldp-ISSUE-10 (Guidance around ETags): Include clarifications and guidance around ETags [Linked Data Platform core]

From: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:53:45 -0000
Message-ID: <2845dc112b52b19f2d3e79ed0dec8d19@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wilde, Erik [mailto:Erik.Wilde@emc.com]

> On 2013-02-04 09:24 , "Raúl García Castro" <rgarcia@fi.upm.es> wrote:
> >.- I think that using ETags should be a MUST, since it is the minimum
> >requirement for detecting conflicts in updates.
...
>
> >.- I would keep things simple and not mention in the specification
> >things like using :weakEtag properties in resource descriptions.
>
> +1, let's keep HTTP concepts in HTTP.

To be clear _here_  (yes - I did raise etags in resource descriptions in
another context), we're recommending using weak ETags, not in resource
descriptions, but in the response header.
Can we agree that the use of weak ETags with RDF content should at least
be a best practice recommendation?

Steve.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 10:54:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 9 May 2013 13:44:29 UTC