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 11:23:22 +1100
Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <3932BE24-F239-4424-B41D-F8D6447C445D@mnot.net>
To: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>

Are you seeing any clients who are using the weak etags in a way  
that's different from how they'd behave if you sent a strong etag?


On 18/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Robert Siemer wrote:

>
> 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
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 00:23:59 GMT

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