Jan Algermissen schrieb:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 4:31 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
So can we drop this stupid debate already? MarkB's proposed
interpretation of PUT is unsupported by the normative specifications
and is violently incompatible with publishing-system reality.
What then is a client to do if it desires store-as-is behaviour? I
propose a May-Modify: [yes/no] header :-)
As a matter of fact, a similar issue is being discussed in the context
of WebDAV (RFC2518bis) and CalDAV: under what circumstances is a server
supposed to return an ETag response header upon PUT, and what exactly
does it mean (such as: if it's present can the client rely on the
content not being rewritten)?
Back in February, the IESG decided to attempt a clarification/extension
of RFC2616. An initial draft describing parts of the problem and
potential solutions was written by Jim Whitehead (see
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.html>),
but unfortunately little has happened since. People interested in that
topic may want to head over to the HTTP mailing list and re-read the
prior discussion (start around
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2005OctDec/0013.html>).
Best regards, Julian
