- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:25:31 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sorry, I missed this because it was buried inside a thread. Now i71; http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/#i71 On 28/05/2007, at 4:36 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm currently going through <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/ > rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html>, checking for > changes that currenly do not appear in the issues list at <http:// > www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/>. > > This is one of these... (in context: <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/ > HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/draft-lafon-rfc2616bis-latest.html#rfc.section. > 13.3.3>): > > Julian Reschke wrote: >> Hi, >> given the fact that more than a few persons were confused about >> the weak matching function, I'd propose to add an example here, to >> appear below the definitions in 13.3.3: >> The example below shows the results for a set of entity tag >> pairs, >> and both the weak and strong comparison function results: >> +--------+--------+-------------------+-----------------+ >> | ETag 1 | ETag 2 | Strong Comparison | Weak Comparison | >> +--------+--------+-------------------+-----------------+ >> | W/"1" | W/"1" | no match | match | >> | | | | | >> | W/"1" | W/"2" | no match | no match | >> | | | | | >> | W/"1" | "1" | no match | match | >> | | | | | >> | "1" | "1" | match | match | >> +--------+--------+-------------------+-----------------+ >> Best regards, Julian > > (a) Do we have agreement that this example is correct? > > (b) Is there consensus to have it included? > > Best regards, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 03:25:46 UTC