W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Etag-on-write, 4rd attempt (== IETF draft 03), was: I-D ACTION:draft-reschke-http-etag-on-write-03.txt

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 13:29:43 -0800
Message-Id: <6D5BD06E-59FD-4D14-A735-1A688EE9C925@osafoundation.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>
Speaking for myself, my aversion is to ambiguously-defined weak  
ETags.  You could probably define something called "Weak ETags" and  
say more about how they work than RFC2616 does, and create something  
useful.  I'm sure your idea of what weak ETags do is a sane one and  
if everybody agreed we'd have interoperability.  But we've had  
interoperability problems around weak ETags and that's the root cause  
of my aversion.

Lisa

On Nov 4, 2006, at 1:33 PM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:

>   As a general note, I still don't quite understand the widespread  
> aversion to weak ETags, and I think that the this editing property  
> show why weak ETags *do* work in an authoring environment.
Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 21:29:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:53 GMT