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

Re: On the use of weak ETags for authoring

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:28:03 +0200
Message-ID: <4A703243.30401@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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>.
> ...

Hi,

Henrik just pointed out that P4 still required strong matching in the 
definition of "If-Match", which we just fixed with:

<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/656>

BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 29 July 2009 11:28:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:08 GMT