- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:39:04 +0200
- To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
- CC: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Lisa Dusseault wrote: > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Recommending the use of timestamps instead a potentially available weak etag >> simple does not make sense. After all, the server is minting the etags, and >> it also controls what it accepts in conditional PATCH requests. Let it >> decide what's right. >> > > It looks to me like RFC2616 forbids this even if the server could > figure out what's right. > > Section 14.26 says "The weak comparison function can only be used with > GET or HEAD requests." So in a PATCH, we'd have to use strong > comparison. We fixed this in HTTPbis (see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/116>), and furthermore, WebDAV's "If" header never had that limitation. So my proposal would be to stay silent on this, and let the base spec define it. > ... BR, Julian
Received on Monday, 19 October 2009 18:39:54 UTC