>Whilst reviewing the rfc for delta encoding, I realized that >my understanding of "etag" may be incorrect. The main reference on etags in HTTP is of rfc2616. [...] >I now wonder if this is incorect. > Instead, should the etag be associated with the underlying > "instance"? >That is, with the contents of a response BEFORE any content >codings, OR range selection, have been applied. [...] HTTP/1.1 allows gzipping (or any other encoding) at two levels: content coding and transfer coding. A different transfer coding or range selection does _not_ affect the etag. If the content coding is different however, the etag must also be different. This is the way I recall things at least, I don't know if rfc2616 says all this that clearly. Koen.Received on Monday, 20 March 2000 04:46:53 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:14:24 GMT