W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2006

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

From: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:09:00 -0500
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1141646940.10917.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>

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
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 12:10:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:49:42 GMT