- From: Eric Sedlar <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:09:31 -0700
- To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
RFC2518bis wouldn't invalidate a class of servers if it includes a new token in the DAV: header to indicate support for RFC2518bis. Clients would still have to deal with no-Etag servers to support RFC2518, but this might accellerate implementation of Etags. --Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> To: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 7:57 PM Subject: RE: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > I have no objection to such a warning (in fact, it sounds > like a good idea to me). But I agree with Julian > that RFC2518bis should not invalidate a whole class of > valid 2518 servers, even for a worthy cause such as ETag support. > > Cheers, > Geoff > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Sedlar [mailto:eric.sedlar@oracle.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 8:47 PM > To: Clemm, Geoff; Webdav WG > Subject: 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 Wednesday, 18 September 2002 03:13:28 UTC