Werner Baumann wrote: > > I want to remind of how Apache and IIS use weak etags: > > They create weak etags when the time of the request is within the same > second as the last modified date of the resource. This weak etags simple > mean: > - if the etag matches, the entity is most probably unchanged, but there > is a small chance, that it changed. > - if the entity changed, it may have changed into anything; there is > absolutely no check for anything like semantic equivalence. > > From this common use of weak etags, it makes sense to not allow weak > etags in PUT (lost update problem), but to allow it in full body GET (in > case the entity changed, the damage is usually small). > ... I'd say that it's the server's choice to generate these kinds of ETags. Nut if it does, and they aren't reliable enough for a write operation, it could still reject the request... My understanding was that we want *allow* servers to support weak etags on write operations, not require. > ... BR, JulianReceived on Friday, 2 May 2008 18:53:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 June 2008 08:04:38 GMT