Re: Issue 39: proposed example for varying the etag based on conneg

On 06.04.2010 16:49, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> ...
> So back to an earlier query: When *would* you use weak etag
> equivalence for different representations?  If never, do weak etags
> have any purpose at all?  What would you use weak etags for?  Because
> if you only use the same weak etag when representations are identical,
> you should be using strong etags instead for that.
> ...

For instance, the way you construct your representation may not 
guarantee binary identity, although the underlying resource is the same 
(think an XML database with a generic XML serializer, affecting, for 
instance, attribute order).

Best regards, Julian

Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2010 14:56:47 UTC