- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:14:31 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
- CC: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@apple.com>, ietf@ietf.org, Ted Hardie <hardie@qualcomm.com>, CalDAV DevList <ietf-caldav@osafoundation.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault schrieb: > My assertion was that if a strong ETag is returned, Xythos WFC assumes > that what it PUT was what the server stored, and it seems you agree. > You found that if a Last-Modified is returned instead, WFC makes the > same assumption -- naturally, they're very similar. It seems that the client always assumes that the server does no content-rewriting, no matter what it returns. So it's incorrect to assume it makes specific assumptions about ETags on PUTs. It doesn't. > You're probably quite right about the general case, that existing WebDAV > clients don't handle content-rewriting servers at all. What's the best Several clients handle it well, because they don't have a local content cache. Examples are Microsoft Office, Microsoft Webfolder, and the SAP Netweaver KM. > thing a content-rewriting server can do in this situation? I would hope > that if a client receives neither an ETag nor a Last-Modified in a PUT > response, then the next time it synchronizes and sees an ETag that it's > never seen before, the client downloads the resource. This allows the > content to eventually get synchronized although perhaps not as fast as > would be ideal. As there's no guarantee in HTTP about content rewriting not occurring, clients should always re-sync (at some point of time). An optimization (which happens to be the one I've been proposing several times now) would be a way for the server to indicate that content was *not* rewritten, avoiding the additional retrieval. > But CalDAV clients will have to handle content-rewriting servers at > least handling events (calendar component resources), because during > protocol development we heard from a couple server developers that > they'd need to add custom iCalendar properties to an event as soon as it > was stored, thus rewriting the content. Yes. I'm not sure how this is different from the generic case, though. Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 21 June 2006 00:14:39 UTC