[Ietf-caldav] Dead properties on CalDAV events / folders
helge.hess at opengroupware.org
Mon Dec 19 05:09:42 PST 2005
On 19. Dez 2005, at 13:57 Uhr, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> So far I've usually implemented etags as markers for content which
>> is "semantically" equivalent. Which of course is wrong if you
>> implement HTTP strictly. In practice it works well _for me_ since
>> clients usually do no range requests on calendar items and those
>> would be the only case where verbatim representation matters?
> Right. So why don't you use weak etags?
"The weak comparison function can only be used with GET or HEAD
But I actually need etags to ensure consistent updates. This could be
worked around by using LOCKs, but then those would need to be a MUST
for CalDAV servers ...
>> Sidenote: what about returning the server side content in the PUT
>> response if it changed, 201 + etag if it stayed the same and 200 +
>> etag + content if it wasn't stored verbatim by the server. Might
>> be an OK workaround?
> Well, you can't use 201 here, unless the resource is new.
Right. A 204 (No Content) would be OK for existing items?
> Using the response body for PUT may work, but it may cause
> unnecessary traffic for those clients that do not care.
Only in the case when the server actually changed the entity. And if
the client doesn't care, it can just stop reading the response
content and quite after a 200?
More information about the Ietf-caldav