W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: RFC2518 issue: requiring ETags (Atlanta wg mtg)

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@xythos.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:09:45 -0800
To: "'Jason Crawford'" <nn683849@smallcue.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'Clemm, Geoff'" <gclemm@Rational.Com>, "'Webdav WG'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3c.org>
Message-ID: <012101c2dde3$c5c14e90$f8cb90c6@xythoslap>

> Let's use the SHOULD and let implementers understand why they SHOULD
> implement strong Etags.  Let the implementers weigh the 
> "difficulty" case
> against the benefit case themselves.   And let's let the 
> implementors that
> don't follow through on the SHOULD know if they are impacting 
> us as users
> and if we're tempted to use a different product.  I know that 
> user feedback
> is a strong motivator for most software developers.

OK, this is actually very related to an argument in favour of "MUST
support strong ETags".  Unless it is a requirement of servers, clients
simply won't implement it. And if clients (and client libraries) don't
implement it, users and even many developers don't have the choice. 

It's a chicken/egg problem, too.  Server implementors won't take the
pains to implement ETags because they know most existing clients ignore
ETags.  How do we exit from this vicious circle?

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 17:09:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:28 UTC