- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:12:24 +0100
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- CC: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > ... > So unless we are going to disallow servers from modifying the > content stored from a PUT (note that our server does not do this, > so I am speaking as a neutral party here :-), we pretty much > have to have PUT return the entity tag of the content that was > PUT, not what would be returned by the GET. > ... As a meta comment: I note here's another experienced person who interprets ETag-upon-PUT differently than people on the HTTP mailing list. *If* RFC2518bis wants to make normative statements about ETags in PUT, it MUST resolve this issue, and in a way that won't conflict with future revisions of RFC2616. At this point I firmly believe that we can't deliver RFC2518bis in time, unless we drop all changes introducing new requirements that are non-controversial. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 20 December 2005 09:14:47 UTC