httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <>
Subject Re: [RFC] InodeEtag option
Date Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:20:36 GMT
On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 03:54:39PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> "Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
> > 
> > Good idea -- I was trying to keep the most relevant part of the name
> > at the front so that it is easy to find in the documentation, but
> > FileETagValue is better than the alternatives.  Actually, just FileETag
> > (with one option being "none") would be best.
> And how should 'FileETag None' be interpreted?  As no ETag at
> all, or a blank one, or what?  (null), '[W/]""', or something else?

No ETag at all.  I'm not wild about this idea -- I just thought of it
for completeness sake.

> The former (omit the ETag field from the response header) will
> require a MMN bump, even though it seems to match the keyword
> intent more closely..

It could be done with notes or an env variable, but we could just skip
it for now.  I wasn't thinking of doing it for 1.3.


View raw message