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 22:45:14 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1180385114.6505.84.camel@henriknordstrom.net>
mån 2007-05-28 klockan 21:40 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
> 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?

A bit hard to make an intelligible weak/strong compare example for
Last-Modified in such table. you'll need full Last-Modified + Date
headers, and a bit of explanation to make people actually see whats
imporant about the difference between them..

> > 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.

Could be, but I have my doubts.. More likely they assume what the weak
comparison function means without actually reading 13.3.3 at all.
	
Regards
Henrik

Received on Monday, 28 May 2007 20:45:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:09 GMT