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

Re: can a conditional header field put conditions on resources other than the target resource?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:02:23 +0100
Message-ID: <5106308F.8040302@gmx.de>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-01-28 00:41, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 26/01/2013 4:05 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2013-01-25 15:58, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking at
>>>> <http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html#precedence>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "... Other conditional request header fields, defined by extensions
>>>> to HTTP, might place conditions on the state of the target resource
>>>> in general, such as how the If header field in WebDAV has been
>>>> defined to make a request conditional on the presence or absence of
>>>> a lock [RFC4918]."
>>>>
>>>> Actually, "If", as defined in RFC 2518 and 4918 can put conditions
>>>> on resources other than the target resource, see the "Tagged-list"
>>>> production in
>>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#if.header.syntax>) --
>>>> should we rephrase P4 accordingly?
>>>
>>> WTF? (and I just love the last paragraph in that section)
>>
>> That just states that RFC 2518 got the syntax wrong (relatively
>> politely).
>
> But the above wording implies that future ones MAY do so if they please
> as well.

MAY do what?

> ...

Best regards, Juliam
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 08:02:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 January 2013 08:02:55 GMT