- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:19:55 +0100
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>, Charles Fry <fry@google.com>, gears-eng@googlegroups.com, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote: > - most of the time, resources that support POST for upload have a > GETtable representation > > - these representations (again, most of the time), are not those of > previous upload, but a form, a collection listing, or both > > - so the resource posted to has a very different nature from those it > creates > > - if, for GET/HEAD, the resource assigns and supports ETags, they have a > very different purpose than those assigned for resumable uploads, and > those will need to be distinguished upon GET -- so some If-Match headers > will cause conneg, some won't > > So my concern is that we use two different types of ETags on the same > resource. I agree, this is a good point. Why use the Etag header for resumable POSTs? If Etags are used (and why not - it's handy not to have to carve out special URL space), I still don't see any advantage to using the ETag _header_ for it in resumed POSTs, as opposed to inventing a Resume-POST header. -- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 13:20:46 UTC