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: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:51:22 +0200
Message-ID: <465C21CA.2020309@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> mån 2007-05-28 klockan 21:40 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
> 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.

OK, I re-read section 13.3, and I still think (agreeing with you) that 
the weak comparison of "1" and W/"1" yields true. At least this seems to 
be the only interpretation of 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.13.3.3.p.7> 
that makes sense:

"...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...."

...as "tagging as weak" is only defined for ETags. It seems to me that 
what we need to clarify is how to extract the validator from a given 
etag. Looking at 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.3.11>:

    entity-tag = [ weak ] opaque-tag
    weak       = "W/"
    opaque-tag = quoted-string

...the validator would be the "opaque-tag" component.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 12:51:31 GMT

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