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: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 00:12:26 +1300
Message-ID: <51065D1A.6060001@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 28/01/2013 9:02 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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?

May define conditionals that refer to resources other than the URL one.

Amos
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 11:13:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 January 2013 11:13:18 GMT