- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:38:26 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 12, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 2012-07-03 09:37, Mark Nottingham wrote: >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/241> >> >> Roy documented the evaluation order for conditional that Apache uses (which, he pointed out, is the only logical way to do it, once you look at it): >> >> <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/241#comment:4> >> ... > > I'd like to avoid to include pseudo-code like that *unless* it's really needed. So would I ... the text provided is just the comments from the code. Once the result is agreed, we can work on text. > Do we really need to define the evaluation order? In what real-world situations well there be more than one condition? > > Wouldn't it be simpler to: > > 1) Formally define the condition expressed by each header field, > > and > > 2) State that all conditions must be met, otherwise a 412 will be returned (with the 304 variant special-cased). No, because it isn't true in practice (nor desired). We actually do want an etag to override last-modified even when IMS is false. ....Roy
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 18:38:53 UTC