Now i89 <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i89>. On 12/10/2007, at 4:37 PM, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > The description of If(-None)-Match still refers to entity when it > talks > about ETag, should refer to entity tag, variant and requested variant. > > Sections: > > 14.24 If-Match > 14.26 If-None-Match > > Problematic text (same in both sections): > > A client that has one or more entities previously > obtained from the resource can verify that one of those entities is > current by including a list of their associated entity tags in the > > and later > > or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource > > Problem: > > ETag values is associated with variants, not entities. There is other > uses of these conditionals than just simple entity caching which seems > to be what the current text has in mind. > > > Suggested replacement: > > > From: > > A client that has one or more entities previously > obtained from the resource can verify that one of those entities is > current by including a list of their associated entity tags in the > [...] > > To: > A client that has one or more entity tags previously obtained > from the resource can verify that one of those variants matches > the current requested variant by including a list of their > associated entity tags in the [...] > > From: > > or if "*" is given and any current entity exists for that resource > > To: > > or if "*" is given and any current requested variant exists for > that resource > > > > Regards > Henrik -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 05:21:04 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:38:28 GMT