https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
Mark Thomas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
--- Comment #4 from Sergey Ponomarev ---
I also thought to make ETag configurable like in Apache HTTPD but in fact for
clients this is still opaque value and the Nginx is not configurable anyway
while Apache Htttpd can be configured to be
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
--- Comment #3 from Julian Reschke ---
3) So the ETag is not incorrect, it just might be suboptimal.
4) I would think your chances of this getting accepted would be bigger if you
left the default handling as is, and added a way to configure
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
--- Comment #2 from Sergey Ponomarev ---
3) What exactly is "incorrect" about the current format?
Weak ETag means that server tells to client that the resource can't be octal
compatible. The client MAY decide not to send Range requests to
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64616
--- Comment #1 from Julian Reschke ---
1) You are combining two different things in a single change request, this is
unwise.
2) It's not a "W3C" discussion; it's the IETF HTTP WG mailing list (which just
happens to use a W3C list for historic
