- From: <bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:16:32 -0800
- To: w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85 ------- Additional Comments From julian.reschke@greenbytes.de 2005-12-13 14:16 ------- I haven't been able to finish the proposed changes for this issue, but here's some text that could go into the introduction of section 14. I'm currently not sure whether we should have it there, or whether it would be better just to expand the explanations for DAV:getlastmodified and DAV:getetag. Speaking of which, one could argue that these explanations don't belong here at all, but should appear where the WebDAV namespace ops are defined. Feedback appreciated. The properties defined by this specification fall into two distinct categories: 1. Properties defined based on the values of certain HTTP response headers, such as DAV:getetag which is based on HTTP's "ETag" response header. 2. Other properties that not have a direct counterpart in HTTP (such as DAV:creationdate). Note that the HTTP response headers "Etag" and "Last-Modified" (see [RFC2616], Sections 14.19 and 14.29) are defined per URL (not per resource), and are used by clients for caching. Therefore servers must ensure that executing namespace operations (such as COPY or MOVE) does preserve their semantics, in particular: o For any given URL, the "Last-Modified" value must increment everytime the representation returned upon GET changes (within the limits of timestamp resolution). o For any given URL, no "ETag" value must ever be re-used for different representations returned by GET. In practice this means that servers o may have to increment "Last-Modified" timestamps for every resource inside the destination namespace of a namespace operation, and o similarily, may have to re-assign "ETag" values for these resources (unless the server allocates entity tags in a way so that they are unique across the whole URL namespace managed by the server). For properties defined based on HTTP GET response headers (DAV:get*), the value could include LWS as defined in [RFC2616], section 4.2. Server implementors SHOULD NOT include extra LWS in these values, however client implementors MUST be prepared to handle extra LWS. Note that all property elements can be extended according to the rules defined in Section 16. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 22:17:42 UTC