- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:57:29 +0200
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > ... >>> Both should return the same ETag witch is that of the PROPGET results. >> Why would they return the same ETag? > > Because PROPATCH changes the properties, not the "object". But this use > of ETag doesn't fit WebDAV very well.. The distinction between a WebDAV resource and its properties is fuzzy. For instance, some "live properties" depend on the HTTP resource (such as DAV:getetag :-), others depend on locks. Then, properties may be computed out of the resource (think extracting the <title> from HTML). The reverse may be true as well, so a PROPPATCH *can* affect "the object". Things are further complicated by the fact that there are many kinds of PROPFINDs; the result depends both on request headers (such as Depth) and the request body. In theory, each unique combination of these may refer to a different variant (using Roy's new definition), and use a separate space of ETags. So, in general, PROPFIND (under Roy's definition of "requested variant") wouldn't return the same ETag as GET (for the same Request-URI). Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 15:57:55 UTC