- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:07:00 +0100
- To: Geoffrey M Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com>
- CC: Dan Brotsky <dbrotsky@adobe.com>, w3c-dist-auth@w3.org
Geoffrey M Clemm wrote: > Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote on 12/21/2005 10:02:23 AM: > > > Dan Brotsky wrote: > > > > I believe all of these things that clients want are accomplished with > > > what we have, as long as we have servers hand back strong etags on PUT. > > > > 1) Servers may not be able to return strong ETags upon PUT. Again, let's > > consider adding an indicator to PUT that let's the server know the > > client really needs a strong ETag, so that the server can optimize it's > > behavior for that case. > > I agree. > > > 2) It seems to me that we can't rule out that servers touch the ETag > > upon PROPPATCH (for instance, because they are indeed updating metadata > > in the file content, such as with XMP). In which case telling the server > > to return the new ETag upon PUT seems to be a very good idea. > > Did you mean, return the new ETag upon PROPPATCH? Yep. Thanks for the correction :-)
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 16:09:09 UTC