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

RE: Etag-on-write, draft -04

From: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 07:07:35 -0800
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Jamie Lokier'" <jamie@shareable.org>
Cc: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000801c716ec$c3c55190$13f0070a@adobenet.global.adobe.com>

> Now if there's broad agreement that RFC2616 is broken with respect to 
> this, let's fix it, potentially breaking some existing servers. But 
> let's be clear about that really is a change.

Well, you might find yourself going back to the early discussions
about etag and PUT (from 1996) to decide whether this 'really is a change'
rather than an editorial issue or clarification.

> While this isn't much of an issue today, it may become one.

Personally (having been in many of those early discussions) I'd
say this was a clarification rather than a 'change'.

Received on Sunday, 3 December 2006 15:08:04 UTC

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