- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:52:56 -0400
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
I also agree that the Etag should only apply to the content. Unfortunately, there are implementations (such as some by Microsoft) that store the dead properties as hidden parts of the file, and which use the file system to provide the modification dates and etags, and therefore a PROPPATCH will in fact change the modification date and etag. So if we want to avoid confusing clients that want to interoperate with those implementations, we probably can at most say that "PROPPATCH SHOULD NOT modify the etag or modification date". Cheers, Geoff -----Original Message----- From: Jason Crawford [mailto:ccjason@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:29 PM To: Stefan Eissing Cc: Clemm, Geoff; w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org Subject: Re: HTTP If-* headers I agree with Stefan. ETags should only apply to the GET/HEAD response. We can invent something else if we want some ETAG-like support that applies to properties. Stefan did mention PUT. I wound't even necessarily mention that since more than just PUT can alter the GET response. Stefan, you've apparently just read the IF-* specifications. Does this sound acceptable in view of what you read? J. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 14:53:28 UTC