Re: On the use of weak ETags for authoring

Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I agree we went a bit too far when rephrasing it; I've committed 
your proposed change as 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/610>.

BR, Julian