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

Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101]

From: Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:35:33 +0100
Message-ID: <47DD92A5.6040406@onlinehome.de>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org



Robert Siemer wrote:
> There are. At least some of my CGI scripts use them. - I would not 
> discard that many other CGIs do the same.
> 
> To see no useful weak etag implementations within the static file 
> serving code among common servers does not surprise me at all. - How 
> should they know about semantic equivalence?
> 
> I still don't know why this mecanism has to be an illusion. 
> 
I don't say, it *has to be* an illusion. I say it *is* an illusion, when 
confronted with current practice. And the spec is self-contradictory, 
because it contains two mutual exclusive definitions of weak etags.

You can resolve this to either side. But the only realistic way seems to 
be to adapt the spec to current practice.

Werner
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2008 21:36:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:37 GMT