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

Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:32:22 +0100
Message-ID: <43AA4876.7060306@gmx.de>
To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
CC: webdav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Geoffrey M Clemm wrote:
> 
> Julian wrote on 12/21/2005 09:54:11 AM:
>  >
>  > Dan Brotsky wrote:
>  > > As to your last question: Yes it's OK and no the server needs to break
>  > > the lock if it does this (because it's indistinguishable from another
>  > > client's edit).  Not all clients will work efficiently against servers
>  > > that unexpectedly munge data after PUTs are complete but  that's life.
>  >
>  > For the record: I think that linking the ETag behavior for PUT to the
>  > fact whether the resource was locked or not would be a really bad idea.
> 
> Julian: I agree with you, but did you think Dan was suggesting otherwise,
> or were you just agreeing with Dan's statement (or at least, with the
> "yes, it's OK" part)?   I am assuming that you were not disagreeing
> with Dan, since I don't believe he suggests anything that would make ETag
> behavior depend on whether the resource was locked or not.

I agree that servers can rewrite the content upon PUT, even if the 
resource is locked. I do not agree that they need to break the lock to 
do that.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2005 06:34:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:12 GMT