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

Re: PROPOSAL: Weak Validator definition [i101]

From: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:47:40 +0100
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080317234740.GE2405@polar.elf12.net>

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 09:44:07AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> 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?

What is so bad with my CGI example? If I change something in the script 
that will make it's output different but has no semantic importance, I 
use weak etags. - You could argument that it is not worth caching at 
all, but please, get rid of "same second as now"-last-modified headers 
first. And that way the whole weak validator story can go.

(I don't see any interop issues with browsers on weak etag resources.)


> 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/.




Robert
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 23:53:35 GMT

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