- From: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:38:27 -0500
- To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "'Lisa Dusseault'" <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@mnot.net>, "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Roy T. Fielding wrote: > On Oct 19, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Brian Smith wrote: > > 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. > > 1-second resolution is as good as nanosecond resolution as soon > as that second is history, and in practice both are useless for > tagging dynamic content that is generated during a response. Not really. If you have nanosecond resolution then you can have monotonically increasing (thus *unique*) timestamps on every resource. Actually, I often implement ETags that way. With one-second resolution you can get something similar by sleeping during an edit until the timestamp changes, I guess. > Using last-modified as a fallback is always better than not > using any conditional at all. Yes, well I was thinking that the server should just refuse all requests without an If-Match header. Unconditional PATCH makes very little sense for most uses. I guess section 2.2 already allows a server to do that (by returning a 409 response). Regards, Brian
Received on Tuesday, 20 October 2009 01:39:00 UTC