- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:58:28 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>, HTTP working group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Well, that's a potential workaround, if both clients and servers know to > use it. I don't know enough about WebDAV autoversioning; is that a > specified behaviour (e.g., submit an ETag and then do INM in a > subsequent retry)? If you do two PUTs with If-Match request header specifying the same Etag, the second one will fail if the first one succeeded (that's HTTP, any RFC3253 server that doesn't behave that way would be non-compliant). > My concern is more regarding the process; having one RFC change the > semantics of a protocol element in another, widely-deployed RFC seems > like a no-no, at least without explicitly updating the other spec. Agreed. The question is: does it? Note that it only applies to a very specific auto-versioning behaviour and it's impact on the resource's live properties. Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2005 23:59:08 UTC