- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 16:59:21 +0200
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- CC: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, 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>
Mark Baker wrote: > ... >> 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. > ... +1. In particular, it would be sufficient to *allow* servers to support weak entity tags in these cases. This change wouldn't break (IMHO) any existing compliant HTTP/1.1 client/server. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 2 May 2008 15:00:06 UTC