Roy T. Fielding wrote:
If the weak etags are not being matched to the string etags on
GET, then that is another bug that must be fixed. It is not an
excuse to ignore the HTTP design.
This is a new aspect. I always thought it was intended behaviour, that
weak etags (in Apache) will *never match*. And therefore thought it a
waste of time to calculate a string that will never be used. If the
intention was, that the weak etag will match on conditional (full body)
GET requests, this will change the discussion.
But still: Wouldn't in this case Last-Modified-Date be the better, more
efficient and less confusing choice of weak validator?
Henrik Nordström wrote:
> lör 2007-12-29 klockan 20:56 +0100 skrev Werner Baumann:
>
>> Objections:
>> - Squid seems not to take any information from the Etag.
>
> Yes it does. It uses the ETag as an resource variant identifier.
>
Is this true. Is there no way for a cache to uniquely identify variants,
but using the cache validator? Isn't this a flaw in the protocol?
Cheers
Werner
