- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:09:12 +0100 (MET)
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- cc: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>, WebDav <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Jim Whitehead wrote: >> I'd like clarification as well. >> >> It's fine for WebDAV to place additional requirements on base HTTP servers. >> I don't see anything in the definition of PUT or of the Etag header that >> would prevent Etag being returned by PUT. > > That's not the issue here. > > The question here is whether an ETag returned upon PUT is for the entity the > client sent (1), or for the entity the server would send upon a subsequent > GET (2). My implementation returns the ETag that asubsequent GET would see, so option (2). Ans I am in the case where the PUT entity and the served entity will not be the same, as there are CVS actions done during the PUT, so possible keyword extensions, etc... > There are cases where both will not be the same, so this needs to be > clarified. In case of (2), a client will need a subsequent GET if it's > planning to use the ETag for subsequent GET/Range requests. > > Best regards, Julian > > -- Yves Lafon - W3C "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Monday, 19 December 2005 23:09:53 UTC