- From: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:58:28 -0700
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sure, OK, so some clients are broken today because they make some assumptions that are only valid on some server implementations. We know we need a solution; I just don't agree that CalDAV is the right place to specify it. I do understand how it's convenient. -wsv On Jun 19, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > It's worse than that; many client authors *assumed* that to be the > case, and implemented and deployed their clients assuming that if > the client receives a strong ETag in response to a PUT, it has no > further work to do to synchronize that resource. So the deployed > base says that *is* the case today. I don't feel our document > makes this situation any worse than the deployed base of clients > already does.
Received on Monday, 19 June 2006 19:59:49 UTC