You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This Is referencing the existence of the concept in RFC 7232.
I worry that allowing support of both strong and weak etags increase the complexity in a client's ability to handle these features.
In addition, the guidance on weak etags (being that it's "differences that the server feels is unimportant") leaves a lot of room for interpretation that may include fields that should never be excluded (e.g. user-settable fields).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
AEP-154 has a discussion around strong and weak etags.
This Is referencing the existence of the concept in RFC 7232.
I worry that allowing support of both strong and weak etags increase the complexity in a client's ability to handle these features.
In addition, the guidance on weak etags (being that it's "differences that the server feels is unimportant") leaves a lot of room for interpretation that may include fields that should never be excluded (e.g. user-settable fields).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: