On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> wrote: > > On mån, 2008-04-28 at 13:44 +0200, Robert Siemer wrote: > > > That raises three issues: > > > > 1) It's not in RFC2616 (weak comparison for non-GET) and so it's not on > > RFC2616bis charta. > > Not convinced. The current limitations on weak etags is just silly with > the exception of If-Range.. > > In my view it's a specification error that validators based on > Last-Modified is allowed in more places than weak etag based ones. Well said. The meaning of any non-range conditional request message using a weak validator is unambiguous. So would this be a "clarify conformance criteria" fix per the charter? Those MUST NOTs seem to make no sense AFAICT, unless there's implementation issues I'm not aware of. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.comReceived on Friday, 2 May 2008 03:31:33 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 6 June 2008 08:04:38 GMT