- From: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 00:47:40 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 09:44:07AM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > This crossed my mind as well... Weak ETags are in use today, but can > we find a situation where they're actually improving things, and > getting interoperability? What is so bad with my CGI example? If I change something in the script that will make it's output different but has no semantic importance, I use weak etags. - You could argument that it is not worth caching at all, but please, get rid of "same second as now"-last-modified headers first. And that way the whole weak validator story can go. (I don't see any interop issues with browsers on weak etag resources.) > On 18/03/2008, at 8:57 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote: > > >Strawman proposal "Die die die": get rid of weak Etags. Do this by > >making the W/ prefix simply part of the ETag. Alternatively, do > >this deprecating: recommend clients to ask again or not use etags > >that begin with W/. Robert
Received on Monday, 17 March 2008 23:53:35 UTC