- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:04:08 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-07-12 06:12, Mark Nottingham wrote: > On 11/07/2012, at 11:07 PM, Julian Reschke wrote: > >> From an off-list WGLC comment: >> >>> 3.3. If-Modified-Since >>> >>> The "If-Modified-Since" header field MAY be used to make a request method conditional by modification date: if the selected representation has not been modified since the time specified in this field, then do not perform the request method; instead, respond as detailed below. >>> >>> This section doesn't seem to say anything about methods other than GET, yet the text seems to imply that a more general case is also covered below. >> >> -> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/371> >> >> Indeed, the spec doesn't really say; is it (a) undefined, (b) 304, or (c) 412? > > > My .02 - 304 is clearly not correct. > > I'd be inclined to say undefined, as I don't think we want to promote IMS in these uses. Well, "defining" is not the same thing as "promoting" :-) Once we properly resolve the evaluation order issue (<http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/241>), the answer to this one probably will become more obvious. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 07:05:22 UTC