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: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 21:40:04 +0200
Message-ID: <465B3014.5090203@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> 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.

Another example?

> 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
>         result.
> 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).

Ah, and that's probably why people are surprised.

I guess we should identify this as a separate issue.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 28 May 2007 19:40:26 UTC

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