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

RE: Etags changing on property value changes, WAS: rfc2518-bis-04 issues (part 1),

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:53:39 +0200
To: "Jason Crawford" <nn683849@smallcue.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JIEGINCHMLABHJBIGKBCEEFMIAAA.julian.reschke@gmx.de>
I guess we need to distinguish two cases:

- a PROPPATCH that indeed changes the result of a subsequent GET -- this is
a perfectly legal implementation, and I think nobody claims that if a
PROPPATCH changes what GET returns the etag shouldn't change as well --
thus: a PROPPATCH MAY change the etag if it changes the content as well,

- a PROPPATCH that does not affect the GETtable content -- I'm tempted to
agree that this SHOULD NOT change the etag.

The other issue was whether once we require this for etags, do we *also*
need to require it for getlastmodified? My concern here is that once we
normatively de-couple DAV:getlastmodified from property changes, there's no
standard date property left that a client could use to monitor *any* state
changes of the resource (which I think would be a really useful thing to

So if RFC2518bis changes the requirements for DAV:getlastmodified, this
should *at least* appear in the issues list and should properly discussed on
the mailing list.


<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Jason Crawford [mailto:nn683849@smallcue.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 11:59 PM
  To: Julian Reschke
  Cc: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Etags changing on property value changes, WAS: rfc2518-bis-04
issues (part 1),

  > > I vote for the wording that is in there.  I think we've already
  > > consensus that changing property values should not be changing etags.
  > Where and when?

  Sorry.  I don't have a particular posting that declares consensus.  It was
  just what I heard over and over again in postings.  People seemed
  comfortable declaring that changing properties should not change ETags.
  There was no significant opposition to it that I recall.

  The issues list lists...


  But I seem to recall that it was discussed more often than this.

  As you (and Geoff in the referenced page) point out, some products will
  become incompatible with 2518bis.   I believe people were aware of this,
  but if they were not, you've just pointed it out.  They should speak up...

Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 18:54:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:29 UTC