W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: HTTP If-* headers

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:52:56 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B103F8B160@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
I also agree that the Etag should only apply to the content.

Unfortunately, there are implementations (such as some by
Microsoft) that store the dead properties as hidden parts of
the file, and which use the file system to provide the 
modification dates and etags, and therefore a PROPPATCH will
in fact change the modification date and etag.

So if we want to avoid confusing clients that want to interoperate
with those implementations, we probably can at most say that
"PROPPATCH SHOULD NOT modify the etag or modification date".

Cheers,
Geoff


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:29 PM
To: Stefan Eissing
Cc: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
Subject: Re: HTTP If-* headers



I agree with Stefan.  ETags should only apply to the GET/HEAD response.
We can invent something else if we want some ETAG-like support that applies
to properties.

Stefan did mention PUT.  I wound't even necessarily mention that since more
than just PUT can alter the GET response.

Stefan, you've apparently just read the IF-* specifications.   Does this
sound acceptable in view of what you read?

J.

------------------------------------------
Phone: 914-784-7569,   ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 14:53:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:00 GMT