W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Etag-on-write, 4rd attempt (== IETF draft 03), was: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-etag-on-write-03.txt

From: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:52:30 -0800
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9183D568-15A3-4F15-B3D8-261E138EEC0F@wsanchez.net>
To: Helge Hess <helge.hess@opengroupware.org>

   It does seem that extending If-Match would be useful.


On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Helge Hess wrote:

> On Nov 6, 2006, at 20:18, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:
>>   CalDAV is a prime example of where weak ETags are appropriate.   
>> If the underlying data store isn't iCalendar, and the server needs  
>> to render iCalendar data every time a resource is requested, it's  
>> entirely possible that the iCalendar data is semantically but not  
>> binary equal every time.  Yes, you can make sure your iCalendar  
>> generation is deterministic, but if you change the software, you  
>> need to change the strong ETags for every resource on your server  
>> along with it.  That's inane.
> Agreed.
> However, if this is insane, don't we need to extend if-match to  
> allow for weak etags? That is, remove this sentence in rfc2616 14.24:
>   A server MUST use the strong comparison function (see section  
> 13.3.3)
>   to compare the entity tags in If-Match.
> Greets,
>   Helge
Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 21:52:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:40 UTC