Lisa Dusseault schrieb:
On Jun 20, 2006, at 10:27 AM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:
Not really, no.
HTTP defines ETag. An HTTP server should be able to use the same
ETag logic on all HTTP resources, and not treat ETags for calendar
resources differently than others. Not all users of ETags are going
to be aware that calendar resources are special.
My concern is that if there is *any* inconsistency between the
general solution when it comes and CalDAV's, that an implementor may
have to choose between being compliant with CalDAV or the more general
ETag spec, or may have to continue to implement special semantics on
calendar resources for purposes which are better served by the other
spec.
I realize that "the other spec" doesn't exist today, and that this
is a total drag. Can't we take your one paragraph and put it into its
own document? I don't know IETF process very well, so I don't know
what the next steps should be, but as an implementor, I'm
uncomfortable with the prospect of dealing with two independently
written specifications for the same behavior.
We basically tried that. What it turned into was this
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt>
with no consensus on the basic model or apparent drive to come to
consensus. Got any feedback on that draft?
It's a shame we didn't make progress on that, but that doesn't
invalidate the approach taken (making this an issue orthogonal to
WebDAV, CalDAV or Atom).
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf