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

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

From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:07:42 +0200
Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
Message-Id: <B4CC2CD7-CADD-11D6-9F78-00039384827E@greenbytes.de>


Am Mittwoch den, 18. September 2002, um 09:09, schrieb Eric Sedlar:

>
> RFC2518bis wouldn't invalidate a class of servers if it includes a 
> new token
> in the DAV: header to indicate support for RFC2518bis.  Clients 
> would still
> have to deal with no-Etag servers to support RFC2518, but this might
> accellerate implementation of Etags.

But support for ETag on a resource is visible on the getETag Property.
What better place to look for ETag support than there?

//Stefan


> --Eric
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
> To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:57 PM
> Subject: RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting
>
>
>>
>> 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 Wednesday, 18 September 2002 04:07:54 GMT

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