W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: PATCH draft

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:22:04 +0100
Message-ID: <4989DCCC.4040007@gmx.de>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:01 GMT