W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2008

Proposed patch for issue 71 (example for ETag matching)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:30:20 +0200
Message-ID: <488F459C.8020807@gmx.de>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Hi,

Mark and I discussed this 
(<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/71>) 
yesterday, and our proposal is to both clarify the matching functions 
and add the example.

Proposed patch: 
<http://www3.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/attachment/ticket/71/i71.diff>

Which changes parts of Part 4, Section 5 to:

--- start ---
    The only function that HTTP/1.1 defines on validators is comparison.
    There are two validator comparison functions, depending on whether
    the comparison context allows the use of weak validators or not:

    o  The strong comparison function: in order to be considered equal,
       both opaque-tags MUST be identical character-by-character, and
       both MUST NOT be weak.

    o  The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal,
       both opaque-tags MUST be identical character-by-character.

    The example below shows the results for a set of entity tag pairs,
    and both the weak and strong comparison function results:

          +--------+--------+-------------------+-----------------+
          | ETag 1 | ETag 2 | Strong Comparison | Weak Comparison |
          +--------+--------+-------------------+-----------------+
          | W/"1"  | W/"1"  | no match          | match           |
          | W/"1"  | W/"2"  | no match          | no match        |
          | W/"1"  | "1"    | no match          | match           |
          | "1"    | "1"    | match             | match           |
          +--------+--------+-------------------+-----------------+
--- end ---


Feedback appreciated,

Julian
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 16:31:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:50:53 GMT