Sure, OK, so some clients are broken today because they make some
assumptions that are only valid on some server implementations.
We know we need a solution; I just don't agree that CalDAV is the
right place to specify it. I do understand how it's convenient.
-wsv
On Jun 19, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
It's worse than that; many client authors *assumed* that to be the
case, and implemented and deployed their clients assuming that if
the client receives a strong ETag in response to a PUT, it has no
further work to do to synchronize that resource. So the deployed
base says that *is* the case today. I don't feel our document
makes this situation any worse than the deployed base of clients
already does.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf