- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:55:13 +0200
- To: Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > 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. Yes, I agree we went a bit too far when rephrasing it; I've committed your proposed change as <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/610>. BR, Julian
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 15:56:06 UTC