RE: weak etags vs PATCH, was: Fwd: New Version Notification - draft-dusseault-http-patch-15.txt from Brian Smith on 2009-10-19 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from October to December 2009)

From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:43:50 -0500
To: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001ca50f4$7e90c6a0$7bb253e0$@org>

Julian Reschke wrote:
> So my proposal would be to stay silent on this, and let the base spec
> define it.

I agree, but IMO, there should *never* be a fallback to Last-Modified
because Last-Modified only has 1-second resolution. If the server supports
PATCH then it can definitely provide an ETag.

Regards,
Brian

Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 19:44:22 UTC