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

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

From: Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:39:22 +0200
Message-ID: <5c902b9e0707170339u66043f16rbe6038925ee276c2@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Cc: "Jamie Lokier" <jamie@shareable.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org

On 5/29/07, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> wrote:
> > (That would also improve cache hits with Apache's method - which uses
> > a weak Etag for resources with a recent time, then converts to a
> > strong Etag with the same value after the time has passed).
>
> Already the case, if Apache follows the RFC.. The initial response will
> have a weak ETag, which is then used in If-None-Match and should compare
> true even after it has been upgraded to a strong one.

FWIW, this isn't the case.  httpd will always return false for weak
ETags - except for the case of Range GET/HEAD requests that present a
weak ETag.  See ap_meets_conditions() in:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/modules/http/http_protocol.c

HTH.  -- justin
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 10:39:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:15 GMT