Re: [Fwd: Re: PUT vs strong ETags]

On Dec 3, 2005, at 3:11 PM, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:

> On Nov 29, 2005, at 1:43 PM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>>
>> Do other people consider this behavior to be incorrect according to 
>> the spec?  (I'm assuming the explanation is correct and it aligns 
>> with what I've seen).  But it seems that within-second changes do not 
>> guarantee "semantic equivalence" as required by HTTP.
>>
>> Lisa
>
>   My best read of the spec leads me to believe that this is not 
> correct as per the spec.
>
>   A more correct solution may be to append something to the strong 
> ETag if it is in the same timespan as now instead of using a weak ETag 
> in that case.
>
>   However, this doesn't address the problem of correctly changing the 
> ETag if multiple changes occur within a subsecond timespan.  But then, 
> neither does the weak ETag trick.
>
>   If people agree that Apache HTTPd is incorrect here, I'll be happy 
> to implement, lobby for and commit an appropriate change for future 
> versions.
>

Wow, that would be fantastic.  But I bet you'd get a strong reply if 
you asked such a question on the Apache list.

Lisa