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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:56:09 +0200
Message-ID: <4BBB4B89.5060100@gmx.de>
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
CC: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, nathan@webr3.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 06.04.2010 16:49, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> ...
> So back to an earlier query: When *would* you use weak etag
> equivalence for different representations?  If never, do weak etags
> have any purpose at all?  What would you use weak etags for?  Because
> if you only use the same weak etag when representations are identical,
> you should be using strong etags instead for that.
> ...

For instance, the way you construct your representation may not 
guarantee binary identity, although the underlying resource is the same 
(think an XML database with a generic XML serializer, affecting, for 
instance, attribute order).

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 14:56:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:53 UTC