- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 23:30:53 -0400
- To: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: "Robert Siemer" <Robert.Siemer-httpwg@backsla.sh>, "Brian Smith" <brian@briansmith.org>, "Pablo Castro" <Pablo.Castro@microsoft.com>, atom-protocol@imc.org, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net> wrote: > > On mån, 2008-04-28 at 13:44 +0200, Robert Siemer wrote: > > > That raises three issues: > > > > 1) It's not in RFC2616 (weak comparison for non-GET) and so it's not on > > RFC2616bis charta. > > Not convinced. The current limitations on weak etags is just silly with > the exception of If-Range.. > > In my view it's a specification error that validators based on > Last-Modified is allowed in more places than weak etag based ones. Well said. The meaning of any non-range conditional request message using a weak validator is unambiguous. So would this be a "clarify conformance criteria" fix per the charter? Those MUST NOTs seem to make no sense AFAICT, unless there's implementation issues I'm not aware of. Mark. -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 03:31:33 UTC