- From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 11:48:36 +0000
- To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <em76c3699f-4421-4d83-a26c-23d0a9c04883@reboist>
------ Forwarded Message ------ From: "Bruce Perens" <bruce@perens.com> Subject: Re: Our old friends, weak ETags On 07/19/2012 10:22 PM, Adrien W. de Croy wrote: >Hi Bruce, thanks for your answer.. but is this _weak_ ETags or just >ETags in general? [Please forward this to the mailing list, it won't let me post.] Complicating the entire ETags issue is the fact that the responsibility to negotiate a content encoding is in a different layer than my application. It's happening in Phusion Passenger, or Nginx. So, that layer has to do something sensible with an existing ETag that is opaque to it. The choices are for it to put a Weak designator on that ETag, or to append some text to the ETag that is specific to the content encoding in use and is standardized across caches so that an arbitrarily-selected cache, not necessarily one you used for the previous request, can respond to a request appropriately. >From the perspective of my web application and the browser's presentation, the content encoding is akin to a transport-layer property. It's transparent, its reversal yields data that is bit-identical to the unencoded version. It seems to me that this is what the Weak designator was intended for. If the cache is allowed to be smart enough to negotiate content encoding and fulfill a request with the encoding it has on hand, there is a point to the Weak designator. If that's not to the case, we can make an well-defined change to the ETag per encoding and dispense with the Weak designator. But standardizing that change would probably be more work than supporting the Weak designator. Thanks Bruce
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 11:49:12 UTC