- From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:07:42 +0200
- To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
- Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Am Mittwoch den, 18. September 2002, um 09:09, schrieb Eric Sedlar: > > 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. But support for ETag on a resource is visible on the getETag Property. What better place to look for ETag support than there? //Stefan > --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 04:07:54 UTC