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: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:32:06 +0100
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1162765926.8345.29.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
sön 2006-11-05 klockan 13:29 -0800 skrev Lisa Dusseault:
> Speaking for myself, my aversion is to ambiguously-defined weak ETags.

In what sense is the current definition of weak ETags ambiguous?

Sure, it's not always obvious when it's reasonable to use them, but the
definition and protocol implications is quite clear to me..

Also some of the RFC2616 restrictions on weak validators can be
questioned. I.e. whats actually wrong with using a weak If-Match in
DELETE/PUT?

Regards
Henrik

Received on Sunday, 5 November 2006 22:32:24 GMT

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