W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: NEW ISSUE: example for matching functions, was: Weak and strong ETags

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:17:50 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1180379870.6505.20.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
mån 2007-05-28 klockan 13:36 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:

> (a) Do we have agreement that this example is correct?

Yes, imho it is what the RFC says. But see below.

> (b) Is there consensus to have it included?

Not sure, might loose the context somewhat as it's not only about ETag
but also Last-Modified which also has strong/weak properties.

The language wrt the weak compare function isn't really very complex.

      - The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal,
        both validators MUST be identical in every way, but either or
        both of them MAY be tagged as "weak" without affecting the

But there is the small questionmark on if this is what was intended for
ETag, or if the optional weakness in the context was only intended for
weak Last-Modified values.. (less than 1 minute before Date).


Received on Monday, 28 May 2007 19:18:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:42 UTC