- From: Steve Battle <steve.battle@sysemia.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:53:45 -0000
- To: "Linked Data Platform (LDP) Working Group" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Wilde, Erik [mailto:Erik.Wilde@emc.com] > On 2013-02-04 09:24 , "Raúl García Castro" <rgarcia@fi.upm.es> wrote: > >.- I think that using ETags should be a MUST, since it is the minimum > >requirement for detecting conflicts in updates. ... > > >.- I would keep things simple and not mention in the specification > >things like using :weakEtag properties in resource descriptions. > > +1, let's keep HTTP concepts in HTTP. To be clear _here_ (yes - I did raise etags in resource descriptions in another context), we're recommending using weak ETags, not in resource descriptions, but in the response header. Can we agree that the use of weak ETags with RDF content should at least be a best practice recommendation? Steve.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 10:54:20 UTC