- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 11:23:22 +1100
- To: Robert Siemer <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>
- Cc: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>, Werner Baumann <werner.baumann@onlinehome.de>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Are you seeing any clients who are using the weak etags in a way that's different from how they'd behave if you sent a strong etag? On 18/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Robert Siemer wrote: > > 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 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2008 00:23:59 UTC