fre 2006-12-08 klockan 14:40 +0100 skrev Justin Erenkrantz: > Uh, no, they *are* semantically equivalent - but, yes, not > syntactically (bit-for-bit) equivalent. You inflate the response and > you get exactly what the ETag originally represented.
To entities is only semantically equivalent if they can be interchanged freely at the HTTP level with no semantic difference in the end-user result. identiy and gzip encoding can not be said to bidirectionally have the same semantic meaning as a gzip encoded entity is pure rubbish to a recipient not understanding gzip. No more than a Swedish translation of a document could be said to be semantically equivalent to a Greek translation of the same document. Content-Encoding is a case of unidirectional semantic equivalence where the identity encoding can be substituted for the gzip encoding with kept semantics, but for ETag bidirectional semantic equivalence is required which is not fulfilled as gzip encoding can not be substituted for identity encoding without risking a significant semantic difference to the recipient. The only real difference of a weak etag compared to a strong one is that the weak one does not guarantee octet equality. All other restrictions apply. Plus a bunch of protocol restrictions where weak etags is not allowed to be used. Regards Henrik
signature.asc
Description: Detta är en digitalt signerad meddelandedel
