Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting

As long as you don't mind a client saying something to the effect of:

"This server does not support the minimal level of functionality that
<product> requires of a WebDAV server (ETags).  We strongly discourage you
from using this server, as you may lose work."

when it points at your server, then go ahead and don't support ETags.

--Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 6:50 AM
Subject: RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting


>
> 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 20:52:41 UTC