W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg

From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 23:14:55 +0100
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: nathan@webr3.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100401221455.GA13656@shareable.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 26.03.2010 00:39, Nathan wrote:
> >only feedback I can give is my immediate question:
> >
> >   can they share a weak entity tag?
> >
> >many regards,
> >
> >nathan
> >...
> 
> I don't see how... Would you consider the gzipped version of a 
> text/plain resource to be "semantically equivalent"?

Yes, without a doubt they are semantically equivalent.  The compressed
and uncompressed versions say exactly the same thing in different
ways.  Their relationship is even purely mechanical and reversible.
Isn't that about as semantically equivalent as you can get?

-- Jamie
Received on Thursday, 1 April 2010 22:15:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:17 GMT