Re: Summary of ETag related issues in RFC2518bis

On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:05 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:
>
> The discussion boils down to:
> After a PUT, is it safe to continue to edit the resource without doing 
> a reload?
> And the server should give the answer. 205 if it is not safe, 204 
> otherwise, with the ETag that someone will get in a subsequent GET.
>
Thanks Yves, I can't believe nobody noticed the relevance of 205 
earlier in these discussions.  It would indeed be a good response to 
use and could even include an ETag if we define what that means.

Lisa

Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 16:41:30 UTC