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

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

From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 22:57:16 -0400
Message-ID: <3906C56A7BD1F54593344C05BD1374B10841D7BF@SUS-MA1IT01>
To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>

I have no objection to such a warning (in fact, it sounds
like a good idea to me).  But I agree with Julian
that RFC2518bis should not invalidate a whole class of 
valid 2518 servers, even for a worthy cause such as ETag support.

Cheers,
Geoff

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Sedlar [mailto:eric.sedlar@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:47 PM
To: Clemm, Geoff; Webdav WG
Subject: Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting


As long as you don't mind a client saying something to the effect of:

"This server does not support the minimal level of functionality that
<product> requires of a WebDAV server (ETags).  We strongly discourage you
from using this server, as you may lose work."

when it points at your server, then go ahead and don't support ETags.

--Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:50 AM
Subject: 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
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 22:57:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:01 GMT