W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: On the use of weak ETags for authoring

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:55:13 +0200
Message-ID: <4A609EE1.2060304@gmx.de>
To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote:
> Just to be clear, the text only clarifies what RFC2616 already said.
> There is no actual change in the comparision function, just different
> wording.
> 
> Regarding wording I think the explicit mention of weakness should be
> added back to the weak comparison function as it adds clarity to those
> who don't quite remember that opaque-tag do not include the weakness
> indicator (this is defined many sections away).
> 
> From:
> 
>       * The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal,
>         both opaque-tags MUST be identical character-by-character.
> 
> To:
> 
>       * The weak comparison function: in order to be considered equal,
>         both opaque-tags MUST be identical character-by-character, but
>         either or both of them MAY be tagged as "weak" without affecting
>         the result.

Yes, I agree we went a bit too far when rephrasing it; I've committed 
your proposed change as 
<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/610>.

BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 15:56:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 July 2009 15:56:07 GMT