Re: ldp-ISSUE-10 (Guidance around ETags): Include clarifications and guidance around ETags [Linked Data Platform core] from Wilde, Erik on 2013-02-04 (public-ldp-wg@w3.org from February 2013)

From: Wilde, Erik <Erik.Wilde@emc.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 03:28:20 -0500
To: Raúl García Castro <rgarcia@fi.upm.es>, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
CC: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>, "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD352F24.D453%erik.wilde@emc.com>

hello all.

On 2013-02-04 09:24 , "Raúl García Castro" <rgarcia@fi.upm.es> wrote:
>.- I think that using ETags should be a MUST, since it is the minimum
>requirement for detecting conflicts in updates.

well, if servers don't do it, then maybe they cannot safely do updates,
but maybe they are designed as read-only servers anyway? we don't have to
constrain HTTP here at all: if you want to get the job done, you have to
use HTTP properly. if you're not doing this, you may just have set up a
server with some serious limitations/issues.

>.- I would keep things simple and not mention in the specification
>things like using :weakEtag properties in resource descriptions.

+1, let's keep HTTP concepts in HTTP.

cheers,

dret.

Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 08:31:20 UTC