- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:11:33 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
Julian Reschke wrote: > Lisa Dusseault schrieb: > > > >>That's incorrect, at least as the Xythos client is concerned (see > >><http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2006AprJun/0090.html>). > >> > > > >I can't really see how we disagree here. If the server returns a strong > >ETag, the Xythos client assumes that the content was written as sent. > >Later, when the client attempts to refresh its cache, if the ETag is > >still the same, the client happily continues using the entity that it > >PUT. Thus, a user can refresh and refresh and refresh, and still not > >see quite what the server has stored and other clients/users see. > > Yes, but if the server *doesn't* return an ETag (as mandated by CalDAV), > it simply uses the Last-Modified time stamp again. That is, it doesn't > work at all with servers rewriting the content upon PUT, no matter > whether they return an ETag or not. But why not a weak Etag, along with "Cache-Control: max-age=0,must-revalidate"? (Or "proxy-revalidate" if you don't mind _that particular_ client reusing the sent entity). -- Jamie
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 11:11:48 UTC