- From: Clemm, Geoff <gclemm@rational.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 09:50:00 -0400
- To: Webdav WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
I agree. -----Original Message----- From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:58 AM To: Lisa Dusseault; Webdav WG Subject: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Lisa Dusseault > Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 8:14 PM > To: Webdav WG > Subject: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > ... > - Be clear in spec that servers MUST do ETags. Explain how necessary > this is to solve the lost update problem. > .. ETags are a good thing, correct. However, HTTP (RFC2616) doesn't require them, RFC2518 doesn't require them, and they '*aren't* required for interoperability. So there's no way to require them in RFC2518bis -- it would break all servers that don't have them. Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 10:13:07 UTC