- From: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 04:14:50 +0200
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
ons 2009-07-15 klockan 12:19 +0200 skrev Julian Reschke:
> With <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/71>, also
> changed around a year ago, we have clarified that these two variants
> indeed match (weakly), and thus can be used in case where weak matches
> are sufficient.
>
> This is a spec change that some have missed, so in doubt please review
> that you are ok with the current text in
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-07.html#rfc.section.4.p.7>:
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.
Regards
Henrik
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 02:15:26 UTC