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

Re: ETags?

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:27:19 -0800
Message-Id: <83D8695D-70DC-11D9-AD7B-000D93324AD6@gbiv.com>
Cc: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>, " webdav" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

On Jan 27, 2005, at 6:31 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> 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.

And has been explained in multiple responses, bindings does not
introduce such behavior -- it is present in any implementation
that allows such things as Alias configurations -- and there
is absolutely nothing that bindings can say about it that isn't
already in the definition of etag in RFC 2616.

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

There is no interoperability problem.  You are imagining that there
might be an interoperability problem if the client developer makes
an egregious mistake in assuming the implementation behind the
interface defined by HTTP.  Quite frankly, that is not our problem.

....Roy
Received on Friday, 28 January 2005 03:27:18 GMT

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