Subject: Re: [htdig] Problems with GET URLS
From: Paul Wolstenholme (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Apr 12 2000 - 09:35:42 PDT
This sounds like a good solution for static web pages - fast, standards
based. But, I think it would still be a good idea to have a metatag
option for people using content from databases.
Adam Rice wrote:
> Geoff Hutchison wrote:
> > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec3.html#sec3.11
> > AFAICT, Apache actually uses full MD5 checksums for ETag: headers on
> > static files. However, the spec itself says:
> Actually, (on Unix at least) the ETag: is constructed as the hexadecimal
> representation of
> this is, of course, implementation dependant--a server can construct the
> ETag: any way it wants as long as it satisfies the requirements of the
> standard (which, as I understand it, are that changes to the document
> will always cause a change to the ETag).
> I would certainly be glad to have the option to use the ETag as a
> measure of uniqueness, but it would have to come with a warning that the
> behaviour was not guaranteed by the standard and that there's a small
> probability of collisions if your webspace is spread across multiple
> disk partitions.
> What I really need in my situation (lots of auto-generated documents,
> some of which have the same content, but are not character-for-character
> copies) is a way to put an identifier in the document itself that will
> be used to determine uniqueness. Preferably with the duplicates weeded
> out at search time so that the "best" one can be shown in the search
> results (with "best" meaning having the most similar URL to the page
> htsearch was called from). This is probably too much to hope for though.
> Adam Rice
> To unsubscribe from the htdig mailing list, send a message to
> You will receive a message to confirm this.
To unsubscribe from the htdig mailing list, send a message to
You will receive a message to confirm this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Apr 12 2000 - 07:20:51 PDT