- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:17:39 +0200
- To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Cc: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>, "Webdav WG (E-mail)" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Yves, Greg, thanks for the link and the explanation. So I change my mind and am in favour of keeping If: headers functionality as they are described in 2518. Regarding potential length of this header: would it be ok to allow whitespace between tokens, so that the header can be more easily split on several lines? //Stefan Am Donnerstag den, 25. April 2002, um 09:20, schrieb Yves Lafon: > On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Greg Stein wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 06:53:34PM +0200, Stefan Eissing wrote: >>> Am Montag den, 22. April 2002, um 18:36, schrieb Lisa Dusseault: >>> ... >>> If headers with ETags do not add any value to the protocol. For >>> GET rfc2616 already defines If-Match and friends. Since the ETag >>> only captures content changes (property changes have undefined >>> effect on ETags), IF headers for ETag lack a use case. >> >> An etag in an If: header can be used to assert that a file has been >> unchanged since you last fetched it. Specifically, that you still >> have the >> locktoken *or* (you lost it and) it is unchanged. > > You can also see the following note on this subject: > http://www.w3.org/1999/04/Editing/ > Thanks, > > -- > Yves Lafon - W3C >
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 04:18:34 UTC