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: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 12:43:40 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, nathan@webr3.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004061220460.31721@wnl.j3.bet>
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, 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.

Imagine a server side include in an HTML page with a datetime displayed 
for the user, the application can consider it meaningless, and use a weak 
ETag to signal that the page won't be byte-for-byte equivalent.

Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 16:43:43 UTC

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