- From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:35:04 -0800
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Well as you can see Roy, we disagree. I would have been fairly likely to implement a client that assumed that the ETag would be the same for all bindings to a resource, because the servers I've worked on and worked with happened to work that way. Sometimes what an implementer knows can blind them to what could be. Lisa On Jan 27, 2005, at 5:29 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Jan 27, 2005, at 5:26 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > >> Ok, then >> >> "The value of the 'getetag' property (and thus the value of the ETag >> for a resource at that point in time) MAY change when a new binding >> is added to a resource. Also, the value of the 'getetag' property MAY >> be different for a single resource depending on which binding path is >> submitted to the PROPFIND request. > > No, the getetag property and the ETag value have no relation > whatsoever with the bindings specification or its methods, > and there is no reason whatsoever to add meaningless statements > to reiterate that fact. > > ....Roy >
Received on Friday, 28 January 2005 01:35:29 UTC