- From: Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:55:30 +0100
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 21:35 +0100, Werner Baumann wrote: >> The spec is self-contradictory and the parts that state "semantic >> equivalence" should be removed. > > Agreed. All definitons of weak should be based on "SHOULD change when > the entity changes in a semantically significant way". > > Regards > Henrik > Using SHOULD only would turn a strong self-contradiction into a weak self-contradiction. I still suggest to remove "semantic" from all validator related stuff and instead use wording as proposed by Mark Nottingham: "good enough, from the server's point of view". I originally raised this issue, because I believed in weak etags guaranteeing something like "semantic equivalence" and I was disappointed when it turned out to be an illusion. My experience is restricted to Apache and IIS. Weak etags created by this two servers are not related to semantics in any way. They are weak only because of the limited resolution of Last-Modified-Date. Are there any implementations of weak validators, that refer to semantic equivalence? Werner
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2008 08:56:15 UTC