W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: ETags?

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:31:00 -0800
Message-Id: <d8d16842d7e13f22802cf737a0a989bd@osafoundation.org>
Cc: " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>

Yes, but as I explained in this email --
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-dist-auth/2005JanMar/0065.html

-- the bindings draft introduces the possibility for client behavior 
which could be harmful to interoperability unless the way that ETags 
interact with bindings is defined.

Since bindings first introduces this possibility, that's our best 
choice for a document in which to resolve that potential 
interoperability problem.

Lisa

On Jan 27, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

> I completely agree with Roy.
>
> If something needs to be clarified about the behavior of etags,
> post a bug against the spec which defines the behavior of etags
> (which is not the binding specification).
>
> Cheers,
> Geoff
>
> Roy wrote on 01/27/2005 08:29:51 PM:
>
>>
>> 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 02:31:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:07 GMT