W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: #462, was: p5: editorial suggestions

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:39:27 +0200
Message-ID: <51C34C5F.90907@gmx.de>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-06-20 18:52, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> ...
>> So maybe change
>>
>> "The Range header field is evaluated after evaluating the preconditions of [Part4] and only if the result of their evaluation is leading toward a 200 (OK) response. In other words, Range is ignored when a conditional GET would result in a 304 (Not Modified) response."
>>
>> to
>>
>> "The Range header field is evaluated after evaluating the preconditions of [Part4] and only if the result in absence of the Range header field would be a 200 (OK) response. In other words, Range is ignored when a conditional GET would result in a 304 (Not Modified) response."
>>
>> ?
>
> Think so.
> ...

OK; see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2299>.

> ...

>>>>> * 4.3 first paragraph re-defines what validator strength is; this should just be a reference to p4.
>>>>
>>>> But then it doesn't seem to say exactly the same thing.
>>>
>>> Well, that's not good, is it?
>>
>> It wouldn't be good, but it probably also wouldn't be something we can change right now.
>> ...

I opened a separate ticket for tracking this one: 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/489>.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 18:39:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC