- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:22:04 +0100
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@messagingarchitects.com>
- CC: Lisa Dusseault <lisad@messagingarchitects.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > Sure. But the client code I sent would break that server's model. You mean this one...? > etag.weak = (value[:2] == "W/") > > if etag.weak: > etag.tag = value[2:] > else: > etag.tag = value That's hard to tell unless we know what the client is going to do with it. > There's nowhere in the spec that says that you can compare a weak ETag > to a strong ETag by stripping the "W/". Well, a client can do that, but in general it's not going to have the desired effect. I'm not sure what your point is... That there are servers and clients out there which are broken with respect to weak etag handling? I agree with that, but I do not agree that this means the PATCH spec should rule out their use. BR, Julian PS: And, btw, httpbis currently *does* define that W/"foo" and "foo" match weakly; see <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-05.html#rfc.section.5> and <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/71>. BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 18:22:51 UTC