RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting

I agree.

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:58 AM
To: Lisa Dusseault; Webdav WG
Subject: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting



> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault
> Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 8:14 PM
> To: Webdav WG
> Subject: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
>
> ...
> -  Be clear in spec that servers MUST do ETags. Explain how necessary
> this is to solve the lost update problem.
> ..

ETags are a good thing, correct. However, HTTP (RFC2616) doesn't require
them, RFC2518 doesn't require them, and they '*aren't* required for
interoperability. So there's no way to require them in RFC2518bis -- it
would break all servers that don't have them.

Julian

--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760