RE: I-D ACTION:draft-whitehead-http-etag-00.txt

I did prepare a draft for full standard with all errata of the time
included, *and* submitted it, IIRC.

There were no comments at the time, and there were open dependencies, so
it could not progress.

I will not bother to prepare another until someone can tell me with a
straight face that 1) all the dependencies have made it to full
standard, and therefore it won't be a waste of time, 2) at least 2
people commit to me personally they will bother to check it for
editorial errors.

Even then, I don't know when I'd have time to prepare another draft.
			Regards,
				- Jim


On Sun, 2006-03-05 at 21:15 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
> At one time (perhaps 4 years ago?) Jim Gettys offered to spin
> a version of the HTTP spec with the Errata included. I
> don't know how big a job it would be.
> 
> If the server is doing rewrites of the data, the server
> could return a 'weak' ETag. It's up to the server to
> decide what is equivalent.
> 
> But it would be unreasonable to return a strong ETag
> for a body that had never before 'crossed the wire',
> and certainly an incompatible change.
> 
> 
> Larry
> 
>