W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101]

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:12:13 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1205446333.10356.35.camel@HenrikLaptop>

On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 16:03 +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> The only proposal I've seen for this is to remove the notion of  
> "semantic equivalence" and replace it with (roughly) "good enough,  
> from the server's point of view".

Isn't that what the specs already says?

The spec does not say "semantic equivalence". It says 'could be
substituted for each other with no significant change in semantics'. and
'A validator that does not always change when the resource changes is a
"weak validator."'.

Note: The full discussion regarding weak/strong is found in the "Weak
and Strong Validators" section, not the definition of ETag.

Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 22:13:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:45 UTC