- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 09:02:23 +0100
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2013-01-28 00:41, Amos Jeffries wrote: > On 26/01/2013 4:05 a.m., Julian Reschke wrote: >> On 2013-01-25 15:58, Roy T. Fielding wrote: >>> On Jan 25, 2013, at 6:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> >>>> Looking at >>>> <http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/httpbis/draft-ietf-httpbis/latest/p4-conditional.html#precedence>: >>>> >>>> >>>> "... Other conditional request header fields, defined by extensions >>>> to HTTP, might place conditions on the state of the target resource >>>> in general, such as how the If header field in WebDAV has been >>>> defined to make a request conditional on the presence or absence of >>>> a lock [RFC4918]." >>>> >>>> Actually, "If", as defined in RFC 2518 and 4918 can put conditions >>>> on resources other than the target resource, see the "Tagged-list" >>>> production in >>>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc4918.html#if.header.syntax>) -- >>>> should we rephrase P4 accordingly? >>> >>> WTF? (and I just love the last paragraph in that section) >> >> That just states that RFC 2518 got the syntax wrong (relatively >> politely). > > But the above wording implies that future ones MAY do so if they please > as well. MAY do what? > ... Best regards, Juliam
Received on Monday, 28 January 2013 08:02:52 UTC