W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE: example for matching functions, was: Weak and strong ETags

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:22:56 +0100
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070529142256.GA16023@mail.shareable.org>

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> Could be, but I have my doubts.. More likely they assume what the weak
> comparison function means without actually reading 13.3.3 at all.


On this topic, if there are some clients (or proxy caches) who require
byte-exact revalidations - i.e. strong comparison - and some clients
who are fine with semantically equivalent revalidations - i.e. weak
comparison - is that currently possible?

Is that done by the server sending a weak Etag in a response, and
giving clients the option to send a weak or strong version of that
Etag in If-None-Match later?

If so, do deployed clients actually do that?  I.e. those requiring a
strong comparison, do they strip away the W/ if it was present in an
earlier response's Etag?

-- Jamie
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 14:23:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:42 UTC