- From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 20:37:55 +0100
- To: Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Werner Baumann wrote: > Things are quite different, when you think of weak etags meaning not > byte-by-byte, but semantically equal. But there is the whole mess. These > are two completely different and unrelated concepts. > - insecure (or unreliable): there is a small chance, that the entity > changed without changing the etag, and the change may be completely > arbitrary. > - semantically equivalent, though not byte-by-byte equal. > > As long as you try to get this two concepts into one definition of weak > etag, it will stay a confusing mess. Plus, when you serve a "semantically equivalent" weak ETag, you can't serve a strong ETag at the same time. This is a silly limitation: supporting weak comparison (whatever it means) shouldn't prevent strong caching from being possible! -- Jamie
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 19:38:28 UTC