- From: Jim Gettys <jg@freedesktop.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 07:09:00 -0500
- To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
- Cc: 'Julian Reschke' <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, 'HTTP Working Group' <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I did prepare a draft for full standard with all errata of the time included, *and* submitted it, IIRC. There were no comments at the time, and there were open dependencies, so it could not progress. I will not bother to prepare another until someone can tell me with a straight face that 1) all the dependencies have made it to full standard, and therefore it won't be a waste of time, 2) at least 2 people commit to me personally they will bother to check it for editorial errors. Even then, I don't know when I'd have time to prepare another draft. Regards, - Jim On Sun, 2006-03-05 at 21:15 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote: > At one time (perhaps 4 years ago?) Jim Gettys offered to spin > a version of the HTTP spec with the Errata included. I > don't know how big a job it would be. > > If the server is doing rewrites of the data, the server > could return a 'weak' ETag. It's up to the server to > decide what is equivalent. > > But it would be unreasonable to return a strong ETag > for a body that had never before 'crossed the wire', > and certainly an incompatible change. > > > Larry > >
Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 12:10:11 UTC