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

Re: On the use of weak ETags for authoring

From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:14:50 +0200
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1247796890.25755.242.camel@localhost.localdomain>
ons 2009-07-15 klockan 12:19 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:

> With <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/71>, also 
> changed around a year ago, we have clarified that these two variants 
> indeed match (weakly), and thus can be used in case where weak matches 
> are sufficient.
> 
> This is a spec change that some have missed, so in doubt please review 
> that you are ok with the current text in 
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-07.html#rfc.section.4.p.7>:

Just to be clear, the text only clarifies what RFC2616 already said.
There is no actual change in the comparision function, just different
wording.

Regarding wording I think the explicit mention of weakness should be
added back to the weak comparison function as it adds clarity to those
who don't quite remember that opaque-tag do not include the weakness
indicator (this is defined many sections away).

From:

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

To:

      * The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal,
        both opaque-tags MUST be identical character-by-character, but
        either or both of them MAY be tagged as "weak" without affecting
        the result.

Regards
Henrik
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 02:15:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:07 GMT