- From: Eric Sedlar <eric.sedlar@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:04:21 -0700
- To: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
- Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
I still don't see how if RFC2518bis requires ETag support it would invalidate existing servers. Clients will continue to support ETag-less servers to support an older version of the WebDAV spec, until ETag-less servers are phased out. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Eissing" <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> To: "Eric Sedlar" <eric.sedlar@oracle.com> Cc: "Webdav WG" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:07 AM Subject: Re: ETags, was: Issues from Interop/Interim WG Meeting > > 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 14:08:22 UTC