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

Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:44:07 +1100
Cc: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>, Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <B8786FEF-B6CC-40B7-8547-87D174B79ED8@mnot.net>
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>

This crossed my mind as well... Weak ETags are in use today, but can  
we find a situation where they're actually improving things, and  
getting interoperability?


On 18/03/2008, at 8:57 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:

> Strawman proposal "Die die die": get rid of weak Etags.  Do this by  
> making the W/ prefix simply part of the ETag.  Alternatively, do  
> this deprecating: recommend clients to ask again or not use etags  
> that begin with W/.


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 22:44:58 GMT

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