W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

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

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:31:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4399F7C6.2020700@gmx.de>
To: Wilfredo Sánchez Vega <wsanchez@wsanchez.net>
CC: Jim Whitehead <ejw@soe.ucsc.edu>, Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:
>   Right.  I'd change it so that instead of using a weak etag, append the 
> string "-potentially-spaztic" or something to the ETag during the first 
> second and use the same ETag without the prefix after the first second.  
> Same result as the current implementation, but without implying the 
> semantics of a weak ETag.

Hm, no.

A strong ETag allows you to do GET with Range headers, while a weak ETag 
doesn't.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 9 December 2005 21:34:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT