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

On Dec 8, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> But with the current algorithm, the server can't return a strong  
> ETag, unless it blocks updates of that content for one second. That  
> may be unacceptable for some resources.

   Why couldn't it?  Just append a suffix or prefix?  What HTTPd does  
right now is use the same ETag string but prefixes it with 'W/' to  
make it weak.  This accomplishes the goal of making the first-second  
etag different, but I think it should do that without making the tag  
weak, which implies something that isn't the case.

	-wsv

Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 00:21:51 UTC