- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:39:27 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-06-20 18:52, Mark Nottingham wrote: > ... >> So maybe change >> >> "The Range header field is evaluated after evaluating the preconditions of [Part4] and only if the result of their evaluation is leading toward a 200 (OK) response. In other words, Range is ignored when a conditional GET would result in a 304 (Not Modified) response." >> >> to >> >> "The Range header field is evaluated after evaluating the preconditions of [Part4] and only if the result in absence of the Range header field would be a 200 (OK) response. In other words, Range is ignored when a conditional GET would result in a 304 (Not Modified) response." >> >> ? > > Think so. > ... OK; see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/2299>. > ... >>>>> * 4.3 first paragraph re-defines what validator strength is; this should just be a reference to p4. >>>> >>>> But then it doesn't seem to say exactly the same thing. >>> >>> Well, that's not good, is it? >> >> It wouldn't be good, but it probably also wouldn't be something we can change right now. >> ... I opened a separate ticket for tracking this one: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/489>. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 18:39:58 UTC