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 12:42:22 +0100
Message-ID: <5106641E.9040605@gmx.de>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-01-28 12:12, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> 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.

Well, no. The old text did not imply that.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 11:42:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 28 January 2013 11:43:00 GMT