- From: Jason Crawford <ccjason@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:22:35 -0400
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@Rational.Com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org
> > 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". > Sounds good. So then an ETAG change on a resource indicates to a > client that the GET response *MIGHT* have changed. Please excuse the other distracting comments in my note. I support the text Geoff provided about etag above. Although not complete statement, I think it's up to the HTTP spec to clarify beyond what Geoff said. I'll add this as a todo item on the issues list unless someone protests. ------------------------------------------ Phone: 914-784-7569, ccjason@us.ibm.com
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 12:11:37 UTC