- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:20:41 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > Personally, I think that we really need a very minor clarification, > plus a simple new feature to help clients that want to avoid a re- > fetch after sending the content. I therefore decided to write up my > own draft. It summarizes the situation (as RFC2616 is concerned), > proposes one clarification to RFC2616 (as mentioned in <http:// > lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006JanMar/0003.html>), > and also proposes that minor new feature (a new response header). No thanks. A new response header will just be interpreted as an entity header. The easier solution is to simply require that ETag in a response to PUT means that the client can use that entity tag in future conditional requests. How the server manages to accomplish that feat if it isn't storing things octet-for-octet is none of your business. Note that this will solve your problem without requiring that the server become a filesystem, and is also consistent with XCAP (even though XCAP is a really bad use of HTTP). In spite of the overspecification in CALDAV, the implementation will work fine as well for the above case. ....Roy
Received on Friday, 11 August 2006 02:20:52 UTC