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

Re: ETags, next call, was: Notes on call from today ...

From: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:09:40 -0800
Message-Id: <7C05ED77-C16B-4E93-ACAC-0EA50AA49CF7@wsanchez.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
   Yeah, you have no way to know that you will ever get a strong ETag  
unless you are depending on a specific server implementation.

	-wsv


On Dec 13, 2005, at 2:34 PM, Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:

>
> +1 for "no".
>
> Julian wrote on 12/13/2005 05:30:32 PM:
>
> >
> > Cullen Jennings wrote:
> > > I have still been looking for an answer on a question I asked  
> long ago on
> > > this. If a client needs a strong ETag, and it gets a weak ETag,  
> should the
> > > client poll the server until it gets a strong ETag? This seems  
> to be the
> > > recommendation but no one seem to say "yes" or "no" to this?
> >
> > The answer is "no", unless the client happens to know that it  
> talks to a
> > server that indeed upgrades the weak to a strong one later (which in
> > general will not be the case).



Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 23:09:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT